XML 32 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 7 - Commitments and Contingencies

 

Operating Lease

 

The Company’s principal executive offices are located at 135 Wood Street, West Haven, Connecticut, and include approximately 7,000 square feet of office and laboratory space at a base monthly rent of $8,695. The term of lease expired on February 28, 2011 and is now on a month-by-month basis.

 

Total rent expense amounted to $26,085 and $26,085 for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

 

Legal Proceedings

 

On or around April 13, 2012, the Nevada Agency and Transfer Company, as agent for service of process for the Company in Nevada, was served with a Summons and Complaint in the case entitled Yidam, Ltd. v. Eugene Seymour, Anil Diwan, and Nanoviricides, Inc. ((Case No. A-12-659535-B) answerable in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada – Clark County (“Court”). The Complaint seeks to compel inspection of the Company’s books and records. On or about May 2, 2012, we filed a Demand for Security of Costs. Upon filing of the Demand, proceedings relative to the Company are stayed pending posting of the demanded security (or plaintiff engages in motion practice about the Demand).  The Company may seek dismissal of the complaint if plaintiff has not posted the demanded security (or engaged the court). The Complaint further seeks unspecified “injunctive relief” in furtherance of the demand for inspection to which the Company believes it is not entitled. The Complaint, by a holder of less than 1 percent of the common stock of the Company, seeks to, inter alia, inspect documents and records of the company to which it is not entitled and in a form and manner the Company argues is not authorized by statute. On or July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff moved to amend its answer. On or about August 8, 2012, we filed our opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September 13, 2012 the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. On or about September 17, 2012 the Plaintiff served its “Second Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint” upon our Counsel in Nevada. As in the prior two complaints that this Plaintiff has filed in this action, this Second Amended Complaint seeks to compel inspection of the Company’s books and records, seeks injunctive relief, an accounting and alleges breach of fiduciary dutiesby Dr. Seymour and Dr. Diwan. On or about October 11, 2012, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is currently being considered by the Court. Management believes that this lawsuit has no merit or basis and intends to vigorously defend it. Specific monetary damages have not been claimed and as a result no accrual has been made in relation to this litigation.

 

There are no other legal proceedings against the Company to the best of the Company’s knowledge as of the date hereof and to the Company’s knowledge, no action, suit or proceeding has been threatened against the Company.