Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2019
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
NOTE 20 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Company is the lessee under five operating leases and four finance leases. These leases contain rent holidays and customary escalations of lease payments for the type of facilities being leased. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term, including cancelable option periods which the Company fully expects to exercise. Certain leases require the payment of property taxes, insurance and/or maintenance costs in addition to the rent payments.
The details of the Company’s operating lease agreements are as follows:
The Company leases machinery and office equipment under finance leases that expire in February 2022 through June 2024 with such terms being a major part of the economic useful life of the leased property.
The components of lease expense for the year ended December 31, 2019 were as follows:
The weighted average remaining lease term for operating leases is 9.3 years, and for the finance lease is 3.6 years. The weighted average discount rate used to determine the right-of-use assets and lease liabilities was 7.5% for all leases.
Future minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2019 under all non-cancelable leases having an initial or remaining term of more than one year were:
Terminated Employment Agreement
An employment agreement which commenced in 2012 with Thomas Kidrin, the former CEO of the Company, that provided Mr. Kidrin with salary, car allowances, stock options, life insurance, and other employee benefits, was terminated by the Company in 2017. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company maintained an accrual of approximately $1,043,000 for any amounts that may be owed under this agreement, although the Company contends that such agreement is not valid and no amount is due.
In July 2019, Mr. Kidrin, also a former director of the Company, filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court, that alleges the Company failed to pay all wages owed to him and breached the employment agreement, and requests multiple damages, attorney fees, costs, and interest. The Company has moved to dismiss certain counts of the complaint and has asserted counterclaims against Mr. Kidrin alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter and prosecute its counterclaims.
As previously disclosed in Note 3 – Acquisitions, the sellers of Kind have attempted to renegotiate the terms of the MOU, alleging that the MOU is not an enforceable agreement, despite the MOU containing all the definitive material terms with respect to the acquisition transaction and confirming the management and lease agreements. The Company engaged with the sellers in a good faith attempt to reach updated terms acceptable to both parties, but the non-reciprocation of the sellers resulted in an impasse and both parties commenced legal proceedings.
On November 13, 2019, Kind commenced an action in the Circuit Court for Washington County, MD against the Company alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an accounting and damages in excess of $75,000. On November 15, 2019, the Company filed counterclaims against Kind and, as plaintiffs, the Company commenced an action against the Kind sellers alleging breach of contract with respect to the MOU and the management agreement, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance, and fraud in the inducement. The Company seeks a declaratory judgement that the MOU is an enforceable contract, specific performance of such contact, and the establishment of a constructive trust for the Company’s benefit.
Both parties brought motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. On November 21, 2019, the Court denied both parties’ motion for a temporary restraining order. In its opinion, the Court specifically noted that, contrary to Kind’s allegations, the management agreement and lease “appear to be independent, valid and enforceable contracts.” Currently, each party’s preliminary injunction motion is pending before the Court. The Company believes that its claims for breach of contract with respect to the MOU and the management agreement, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance, and fraud in the inducement are meritorious and that Kind’s claims against the Company are without merit. The Company intends to aggressively prosecute and defend the action.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef