XML 31 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Nov. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 13 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Employment Agreements The Company has employment agreements in place for certain members of management. These employment agreements which include severance arrangements, are for periods ranging from one to two years and contain certain provisions for severance payments in the event of termination or change of control. Leases The Company entered into a ten-year lease in April 2004 for its 17,600-square foot cGMP/cGTP compliant corporate headquarters in Oldsmar, Florida. This facility contains the Company’s executive offices, its conference and training center, its laboratory processing and cryogenic storage facility and its scientific offices. In January 2016, the Company extended the main lease through December 31, 2018 for the 17,600-square foot space. Rent charged to operations was $310,970 and $288,832 for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and is included in cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss). The future minimum rental payments under the operating lease are as follows:
Fiscal Year Ending November 30, |  | Rent |
2018 |  | $ | 229,038 |
2019 |  | $ | 19,087 |
The Company entered into a one-year lease in November 2013 for an additional 800 square feet of office space in Miami, Florida for annual rent of approximately $27,120. The lease commenced during December 2013. In December 2016, the Company extended the lease through December 31, 2018. Legal Proceedings On December 3, 2015, a complaint styled Gary T. Brotherson, M.D., et al. v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc., Case No. 15-007461-CI, Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida, was served on the Company, naming it as defendant and alleging, among other things, that the Company breached certain agreements with plaintiffs and seeking damages in excess of $15,000, the jurisdictional amount of the court in which the action is pending. On January 12, 2016, the Company served its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and it intends to contest the action vigorously. At this time, it is not possible for the Company to estimate the loss or the range of possible loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome, as the ultimate resolution of the complaint is uncertain at this time. No amounts have been accrued as of November 30, 2017. On January 20, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and certain current officers and directors of the Company (Case No. 11915-VCG). The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and sought appropriate injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against defendants that a certain provision of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended through September 22, 2014, violated Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to the removal of directors. The plaintiff amended the complaint on March 4, 2016 to remove the breach of fiduciary duty count and to move forward only on its claim that one provision of the Bylaws violated Section 141(k). On March 18, 2016, the Company announced that the Board of Directors had amended the Bylaw in question. Plaintiff filed a stipulation dismissing the action as moot on June 2, 2016. The Court retained jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s request for $200,000 in attorneys’ fee associated with mooting the litigation. The Court heard arguments on plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees on September 29, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the Court issued its order awarding Plaintiff $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses which is reflected in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss). The Company’s maximum deductible under its Directors and Officers insurance policy for this claim was $500,000. On February 24, 2016, a complaint styled Charles D. Nyberg and Mary J. Nyberg and as trustees of the CDMJNyberg Family Trust v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc., Case No. 8:16CV408t30, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Hillsborough County, Florida, was served on the Company, naming it as defendant and alleging, among other things, that the Company breached certain agreements with plaintiffs and seeking damages in excess of $75,000, the jurisdictional amount of the court in which the action is pending. On July 27, 2016 the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (“Agreement”) with Charles D. Nyberg and Mary J. Nyberg, individually and as Trustees of the CDMJ Nyberg Family Trust (collectively, the “Nybergs”). Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Company made a payment of $3,400,000 (the “Settlement Payment”) on August 26, 2016. In consideration of the Settlement Payment, all legal claims brought against the Company by the Nybergs pursuant to the lawsuit, were settled. Additionally, in consideration of the Settlement Payment, the Nybergs, who owned the rights to and interests in 50% of each of the Florida Revenue Sharing Agreement and the Texas Revenue Sharing Agreement (together, the “RSAs”) terminated their rights to these interests in the RSAs, resulting in a 50% reduction in the Company’s ongoing payment obligations under the RSAs (see Note 15). In addition, from time to time the Company is subject to proceedings, lawsuits, contract disputes and other claims in the normal course of its business. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of current matters should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. It is possible, however, that there could be an unfavorable ultimate outcome for or resolution which could be material to the Company’s results of operations for a particular quarterly reporting period. Litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company does not include an estimate of legal fees and other related defense costs in its estimate of loss contingencies.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration