CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved in legal proceedings related to matters, which are incidental to its business. The Company has also assumed a number of claims as a result of the Merger. See below for a discussion on these matters. The healthcare industry is subject to numerous laws and regulations of federal, state and local governments. These laws and regulations include, but are not necessarily limited to, matters such as licensure, accreditation, government healthcare program participation requirement, reimbursement for patient services and Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Government activity has increased with respect to investigations and allegations concerning possible violations of fraud and abuse statutes and regulations by healthcare providers. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in expulsion from government healthcare programs together with the imposition of significant fines and penalties, as well as significant repayments for patient services previously billed. Management believes that the Company is in compliance with fraud and abuse regulations, as well as other applicable government laws and regulations. While no material regulatory inquiries have been made, compliance with such laws and regulations can be subject to future government review and interpretation, as well as regulatory actions unknown or unasserted at this time. The outcome of legal proceedings and claims brought against us are subject to significant uncertainty. Therefore, although management considers the likelihood of such an outcome to be remote, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against us in the same reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, our financial statements for such reporting period could be materially adversely affected. In general, the resolution of a legal matter could prevent us from offering our services or products to others, could be material to our financial condition or cash flows, or both, or could otherwise adversely affect our operating results. Claims assumed in the Merger The Company assumed a number of claims as a result of the Merger. In addition to the claims described below, we are delinquent on the payment of outstanding accounts payable certain of our vendors and suppliers who have taken or have threatened to take legal action to collect such outstanding amounts. On February 25, 2016, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (“UNMC”) filed a lawsuit against us in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, for breach of contract and seeking recovery of $0.7 million owed by us to UNMC. A $0.4 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. We and UNMC entered into a settlement agreement dated February 6, 2017, which included, among other things, a mutual general release of claims, and our agreement to pay $0.4 million to UNMC in installments over a period of time. As of March 15, 2017, the initial payment due to UNMC under the settlement agreement is delinquent. We and UNMC are currently in discussions to extend the date of the initial payment due to UNMC. A $0.4 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. On April 13, 2016, Fox Chase Cancer Center (“Fox Chase”) filed a lawsuit against Transgenomic in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Civil Trial Division (the “Court of Common Pleas”), alleging, among other things, breach of contract, tortious interference with present and prospective contractual relations, unjust enrichment, fraudulent conversion and conspiracy and seeking punitive damages in addition to damages and other relief. This lawsuit relates to a license agreement Transgenomic entered into with Fox Chase in August 2000, as amended (the “License Agreement”), as well as the assignment of certain of Transgenomic's rights under the License Agreement to Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (“IDT”) pursuant to the Surveyor Kit Patent, Technology and Inventory Purchase Agreement Transgenomic entered into with IDT effective as of July 1, 2014 (the “IDT Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the IDT Agreement, Transgenomic agreed to indemnify IDT with respect to certain of the claims asserted in the Fox Chase proceeding. On July 8, 2016, the Court of Common Pleas sustained Transgenomic's preliminary objections to several of Fox Chase’s claims and dismissed the claims for tortious interference, fraudulent conversion, conspiracy, punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, the case has been narrowed so that only certain contract claims and an unjust enrichment claim remained pending against Transgenomic. During June 2017, prior to the Merger, Transgenomic entered into a settlement agreement with Fox Chase (the “Agreement”) which will resolve all outstanding claims in the litigation brought in April 2016 by Fox Chase against Transgenomic in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (the “Action”). The case will remain pending with the Court until all settlement payments to Fox Chase have been made. Under the Agreement the Company will make three (3) payments to Fox Chase totaling $175,000. The last payment is to be made on or before September 30, 2017, and once received Fox Chase is obligated to cause the Action to be formally dismissed with prejudice. Also, on July 13, 2017 the Company entered into an agreement with its co-Defendant, IDT, regarding the Company’s indemnity obligations to IDT for legal fees and expenses incurred in the Action pursuant to the terms of the IDT Agreement. The IDT Agreement provides for monthly payments of $27,800 from the Company to IDT, in the total amount of $139,000, commencing on August 15, 2017 and concluding on December 15, 2017. A $0.3 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. On June 23, 2016, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (“Mount Sinai”) filed a lawsuit against us in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment and quantum merit, and seeking recovery of $0.7 million owed by us to Mount Sinai for services rendered. We and Mount Sinai entered into a settlement agreement dated October 27, 2016, which included, among other things, a mutual general release of claims, and our agreement to pay approximately $0.7 million to Mount Sinai in installments over a period of time. A $0.7 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. Effective as of February 1, 2017, we and Mount Sinai agreed to amend the terms of our settlement agreement to extend the date of the initial payment due to Mount Sinai. On December 19, 2016, Todd Smith (“Smith”) filed a lawsuit against us in the District Court of Douglas County Nebraska, alleging breach of contract and seeking recovery of $2.2 million owed by us to Smith for costs and damages arising from a breach of our obligations pursuant to a lease agreement between the parties. On April 7, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with Smith related to the early termination of our lease for our Omaha, Nebraska facility. The agreement included, among other things, a mutual general release of claims, and our agreement to pay approximately $0.6 million to Smith in installments over a period of time. A $0.6 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. On February 21, 2017, XIFIN, Inc. (“XIFIN”) filed a lawsuit against us in the District Court for the Southern District of California alleging breach of written contract and seeking recovery of approximately $0.27 million owed by us to XIFIN for damages arising from a breach of our obligations pursuant to a Systems Services Agreement between us and XIFIN, dated as of February 22, 2013, as amended and restated on September 1, 2014. On April 5, 2017, the court clerk entered default against us. On May 5, 2017, XIFIN filed an application for entry of default judgment against us. A $0.3 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. We and Science Park Development Corporation (“SPDC”) entered into that certain Lease dated as of December 31, 2011, as modified by the First Amendment to Lease dated as of June 18, 2013, as further modified by a letter agreement dated as of February 2, 2015, as modified by the Second Amendment to Lease dated as of June 26, 2015 (the “ SPDC Lease”). In November 2016, SPDC alleged that we defaulted on our obligations under the SPDC Lease. Specifically, SPDC alleges that we failed to pay approximately $0.4 million in rental payments due under the SPDC Lease and that we vacated a portion of the leased premises in violation of the terms of the SPDC Lease. We and SPDC entered into a settlement agreement dated March 6, 2017, which included, among other things, a mutual general release of claims, and our agreement to pay approximately $0.4 million to SPDC in installments over a period of time. This liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. CPA Global provides us with certain patent management services. On February 6, 2017, CPA Global claimed that we owe approximately $0.2 million for certain patent maintenance services rendered. CPA Global has not filed claims against us in connection with this allegation. A liability of approximately $0.2 million has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. On March 9, 2016, counsel for Edge BioSystems, Inc. (“EdgeBio”) sent a demand letter on behalf of EdgeBio to us in connection with the terms of that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated September 8, 2015 (the “EdgeBio Agreement”). EdgeBio alleges, among other things, that certain customers of EdgeBio erroneously remitted payments to us, that such payments should have been paid to EdgeBio and that we failed to remit these funds to EdgeBio in violation of the terms of the EdgeBio Agreement. On September 13, 2016, we received a demand for payment letter from EdgeBio’s counsel alleging that the balance due to EdgeBio is approximately $0.1 million. A liability of approximately $0.1 million has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. On February 17, 2017, Jesse Campbell (“Campbell”) filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against us in the District Court for the District of Nebraska alleging we have a materially incomplete and misleading proxy relating to a potential merger and that the merger agreement’s deal protection provisions deter superior offers. As a result, he alleges that we have violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereafter. Although we intend to defend the lawsuit, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this case. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we are unable to estimate the amount of loss, or range of possible loss, at this time that may result from this action. In the event that a settlement is reached related to these matters, the amount of such settlement may be material to our results of operations and financial condition and may have a material adverse impact on our liquidity.

CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in legal proceedings related to matters, which are incidental to its business. The Company has also assumed a number of claims as a result of the Merger. See below for a discussion on these matters.

The healthcare industry is subject to numerous laws and regulations of federal, state and local governments. These laws and regulations include, but are not necessarily limited to, matters such as licensure, accreditation, government healthcare program participation requirement, reimbursement for patient services and Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Government activity has increased with respect to investigations and allegations concerning possible violations of fraud and abuse statutes and regulations by healthcare providers.

Violations of these laws and regulations could result in expulsion from government healthcare programs together with the imposition of significant fines and penalties, as well as significant repayments for patient services previously billed. Management believes that the Company is in compliance with fraud and abuse regulations, as well as other applicable government laws and regulations. While no material regulatory inquiries have been made, compliance with such laws and regulations can be subject to future government review and interpretation, as well as regulatory actions unknown or unasserted at this time.

The outcome of legal proceedings and claims brought against us are subject to significant uncertainty. Therefore, although management considers the likelihood of such an outcome to be remote, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against us in the same reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, our financial statements for such reporting period could be materially adversely affected. In general, the resolution of a legal matter could prevent us from offering our services or products to others, could be material to our financial condition or cash flows, or both, or could otherwise adversely affect our operating results.

Claims assumed in the Merger

The Company assumed a number of claims as a result of the Merger. In addition to the claims described below, we are delinquent on the payment of outstanding accounts payable certain of our vendors and suppliers who have taken or have threatened to take legal action to collect such outstanding amounts.

On February 25, 2016, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (“UNMC”) filed a lawsuit against us in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, for breach of contract and seeking recovery of $0.7 million owed by us to UNMC. A $0.4 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. We and UNMC entered into a settlement agreement dated February 6, 2017, which included, among other things, a mutual general release of claims, and our agreement to pay $0.4 million to UNMC in installments over a period of time. As of March 15, 2017, the initial payment due to UNMC under the settlement agreement is delinquent. We and UNMC are currently in discussions to extend the date of the initial payment due to UNMC. A $0.4 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017.

On April 13, 2016, Fox Chase Cancer Center (“Fox Chase”) filed a lawsuit against Transgenomic in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Civil Trial Division (the “Court of Common Pleas”), alleging, among other things, breach of contract, tortious interference with present and prospective contractual relations, unjust enrichment, fraudulent conversion and conspiracy and seeking punitive damages in addition to damages and other relief. This lawsuit relates to a license agreement Transgenomic entered into with Fox Chase in August 2000, as amended (the “License Agreement”), as well as the assignment of certain of Transgenomic's rights under the License Agreement to Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (“IDT”) pursuant to the Surveyor Kit Patent, Technology and Inventory Purchase Agreement Transgenomic entered into with IDT effective as of July 1, 2014 (the “IDT Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the IDT Agreement, Transgenomic agreed to indemnify IDT with respect to certain of the claims asserted in the Fox Chase proceeding. On July 8, 2016, the Court of Common Pleas sustained Transgenomic's preliminary objections to several of Fox Chase’s claims and dismissed the claims for tortious interference, fraudulent conversion, conspiracy, punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, the case has been narrowed so that only certain contract claims and an unjust enrichment claim remained pending against Transgenomic.

During June 2017, prior to the Merger, Transgenomic entered into a settlement agreement with Fox Chase (the “Agreement”) which will resolve all outstanding claims in the litigation brought in April 2016 by Fox Chase against Transgenomic in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (the “Action”). The case will remain pending with the Court until all settlement payments to Fox Chase have been made. Under the Agreement the Company will make three (3) payments to Fox Chase totaling $175,000. The last payment is to be made on or before September 30, 2017, and once received Fox Chase is obligated to cause the Action to be formally dismissed with prejudice. Also, on July 13, 2017 the Company entered into an agreement with its co-Defendant, IDT, regarding the Company’s indemnity obligations to IDT for legal fees and expenses incurred in the Action pursuant to the terms of the IDT Agreement. The IDT Agreement provides for monthly payments of $27,800 from the Company to IDT, in the total amount of $139,000, commencing on August 15, 2017 and concluding on December 15, 2017. A $0.3 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017.

On June 23, 2016, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (“Mount Sinai”) filed a lawsuit against us in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment and quantum merit, and seeking recovery of $0.7 million owed by us to Mount Sinai for services rendered. We and Mount Sinai entered into a settlement agreement dated October 27, 2016, which included, among other things, a mutual general release of claims, and our agreement to pay approximately $0.7 million to Mount Sinai in installments over a period of time. A $0.7 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017. Effective as of February 1, 2017, we and Mount Sinai agreed to amend the terms of our settlement agreement to extend the date of the initial payment due to Mount Sinai.

On December 19, 2016, Todd Smith (“Smith”) filed a lawsuit against us in the District Court of Douglas County Nebraska, alleging breach of contract and seeking recovery of $2.2 million owed by us to Smith for costs and damages arising from a breach of our obligations pursuant to a lease agreement between the parties. On April 7, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with Smith related to the early termination of our lease for our Omaha, Nebraska facility. The agreement included, among other things, a mutual general release of claims, and our agreement to pay approximately $0.6 million to Smith in installments over a period of time. A $0.6 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017.

On February 21, 2017, XIFIN, Inc. (“XIFIN”) filed a lawsuit against us in the District Court for the Southern District of California alleging breach of written contract and seeking recovery of approximately $0.27 million owed by us to XIFIN for damages arising from a breach of our obligations pursuant to a Systems Services Agreement between us and XIFIN, dated as of February 22, 2013, as amended and restated on September 1, 2014. On April 5, 2017, the court clerk entered default against us. On May 5, 2017, XIFIN filed an application for entry of default judgment against us. A $0.3 million liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017.

We and Science Park Development Corporation (“SPDC”) entered into that certain Lease dated as of December 31, 2011, as modified by the First Amendment to Lease dated as of June 18, 2013, as further modified by a letter agreement dated as of February 2, 2015, as modified by the Second Amendment to Lease dated as of June 26, 2015 (the “ SPDC Lease”). In November 2016, SPDC alleged that we defaulted on our obligations under the SPDC Lease. Specifically, SPDC alleges that we failed to pay approximately $0.4 million in rental payments due under the SPDC Lease and that we vacated a portion of the leased premises in violation of the terms of the SPDC Lease. We and SPDC entered into a settlement agreement dated March 6, 2017, which included, among other things, a mutual general release of claims, and our agreement to pay approximately $0.4 million to SPDC in installments over a period of time. This liability has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017.

CPA Global provides us with certain patent management services. On February 6, 2017, CPA Global claimed that we owe approximately $0.2 million for certain patent maintenance services rendered. CPA Global has not filed claims against us in connection with this allegation. A liability of approximately $0.2 million has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017.

On March 9, 2016, counsel for Edge BioSystems, Inc. (“EdgeBio”) sent a demand letter on behalf of EdgeBio to us in connection with the terms of that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated September 8, 2015 (the “EdgeBio Agreement”). EdgeBio alleges, among other things, that certain customers of EdgeBio erroneously remitted payments to us, that such payments should have been paid to EdgeBio and that we failed to remit these funds to EdgeBio in violation of the terms of the EdgeBio Agreement. On September 13, 2016, we received a demand for payment letter from EdgeBio’s counsel alleging that the balance due to EdgeBio is approximately $0.1 million. A liability of approximately $0.1 million has been recorded and is reflected in accrued expenses at June 30, 2017.

On February 17, 2017, Jesse Campbell (“Campbell”) filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against us in the District Court for the District of Nebraska alleging we have a materially incomplete and misleading proxy relating to a potential merger and that the merger agreement’s deal protection provisions deter superior offers. As a result, he alleges that we have violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereafter. Although we intend to defend the lawsuit, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this case. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we are unable to estimate the amount of loss, or range of possible loss, at this time that may result from this action. In the event that a settlement is reached related to these matters, the amount of such settlement may be material to our results of operations and financial condition and may have a material adverse impact on our liquidity.