CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 7 – CONTINGENCIES In January 2020, we became aware of a complaint filed by Jitendra Jain, Manish Arora, Scariy Kumaramangalam, Harsh Datta and Balvant Arora (collectively, plaintiffs), against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Trxade, Inc. and our Chief Executive Officer, Suren Ajjarapu as well as certain unrelated persons, Annapurna Gundlapalli, Gajan Mahendiran and Nexgen Memantine (collectively, defendants), in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama (Case:47-CV-2019-902216.00). The complaint alleged causes of actions against the defendants including fraud in the inducement, relating to certain investments alleged to have been made by plaintiffs in Nexgen Memantine, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and voidable transactions. The complaint related to certain investments alleged made by the plaintiffs in Nexgen Memantine and certain alleged fraudulent transfers of assets and funds alleged to have been taken by the defendants which are unrelated to the Company. The complaint sought $425,000 in compensatory damages and $1,275,000 in punitive damages. The Company and Mr. Ajjarapu denied in their entirety the plaintiffs’ allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the Company and Mr. Ajjarapu, which motion was granted in May 2020, due to the plaintiffs not being able to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants, which motion was successful as to all defendants. The Company and Mr. Ajjarapu further refute any connections for the purpose of the suit to the other named defendants. To the Company’s and Mr. Ajjarapu’s knowledge, the complaint had no merit whatsoever. The final date for the plaintiffs to appeal the ruling to dismiss the lawsuit passed in August 2020, and there was no appeal. As such, the ruling is final. However, in September 2020, the plaintiffs filed a similar complaint (alleging substantially similar facts) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (Case 8:20-cv-02263), against the same defendants but adding Westminster Pharmaceuticals, LLC, our former wholly-owned subsidiary (“Westminster”), and raising claims for alleged fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act; joint and several liability under 15 U.S.C. Code 78t (against Trxade, Inc.); fraudulent transactions of securities under the Florida Securities Act (against all of the defendants except Trxade); and sale of unregistered securities under the Florida Securities Act (against all of the defendants except Trxade). The total amount of damages sought is unclear but is thought to be in excess of $425,000. To the Company’s and Mr. Ajjarapu’s knowledge, the complaint has no merit whatsoever and each of the Company and Mr. Ajjarapu intend to defend themselves and oppose the relief sought in the complaint. The Company is not currently accused of any direct misconduct; instead, the Company is alleged to be liable for the acts of certain or all of the other defendants. The Company would likely only incur liability if some or all of the other defendants were found liable to plaintiffs and the Company is found to be jointly and severally liable for the actions of such other defendant or defendants. The lawsuit claims approximately $450,000 in damages; however, based on facts currently known, the Company assesses the likelihood of any material loss as remote.

CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 7 – CONTINGENCIES

In January 2020, we became aware of a complaint filed by Jitendra Jain, Manish Arora, Scariy Kumaramangalam, Harsh Datta and Balvant Arora (collectively, plaintiffs), against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Trxade, Inc. and our Chief Executive Officer, Suren Ajjarapu as well as certain unrelated persons, Annapurna Gundlapalli, Gajan Mahendiran and Nexgen Memantine (collectively, defendants), in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama (Case:47-CV-2019-902216.00). The complaint alleged causes of actions against the defendants including fraud in the inducement, relating to certain investments alleged to have been made by plaintiffs in Nexgen Memantine, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and voidable transactions. The complaint related to certain investments alleged made by the plaintiffs in Nexgen Memantine and certain alleged fraudulent transfers of assets and funds alleged to have been taken by the defendants which are unrelated to the Company. The complaint sought $425,000 in compensatory damages and $1,275,000 in punitive damages. The Company and Mr. Ajjarapu denied in their entirety the plaintiffs’ allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the Company and Mr. Ajjarapu, which motion was granted in May 2020, due to the plaintiffs not being able to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants, which motion was successful as to all defendants. The Company and Mr. Ajjarapu further refute any connections for the purpose of the suit to the other named defendants. To the Company’s and Mr. Ajjarapu’s knowledge, the complaint had no merit whatsoever. The final date for the plaintiffs to appeal the ruling to dismiss the lawsuit passed in August 2020, and there was no appeal. As such, the ruling is final.

However, in September 2020, the plaintiffs filed a similar complaint (alleging substantially similar facts) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (Case 8:20-cv-02263), against the same defendants but adding Westminster Pharmaceuticals, LLC, our former wholly-owned subsidiary (“Westminster”), and raising claims for alleged fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act; joint and several liability under 15 U.S.C. Code 78t (against Trxade, Inc.); fraudulent transactions of securities under the Florida Securities Act (against all of the defendants except Trxade); and sale of unregistered securities under the Florida Securities Act (against all of the defendants except Trxade). The total amount of damages sought is unclear but is thought to be in excess of $425,000. To the Company’s and Mr. Ajjarapu’s knowledge, the complaint has no merit whatsoever and each of the Company and Mr. Ajjarapu intend to defend themselves and oppose the relief sought in the complaint. The Company is not currently accused of any direct misconduct; instead, the Company is alleged to be liable for the acts of certain or all of the other defendants. The Company would likely only incur liability if some or all of the other defendants were found liable to plaintiffs and the Company is found to be jointly and severally liable for the actions of such other defendant or defendants. The lawsuit claims approximately $450,000 in damages; however, based on facts currently known, the Company assesses the likelihood of any material loss as remote.