Commitments and Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

Administrative Claim of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP

 

On January 30, 2017 the Company entered into a new Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Company has agreed to pay Greenberg $1,117,574 plus any interest that has accrued at the rate of 6.0% per annum, as follows: (i) $100,000 on or before December 31, 2017; (ii) $150,000 on or before December 31, 2018 (iii) 4.0% of the first $2.5 million of gross proceeds of any private or public offering by the company (an “Offering”); (iv) 2.0% of the next $2.5 million of gross proceeds from such Offerings; (v) 4.0% of any gross proceeds thereafter from such Offerings; and (vi) the remaining balance on or before December 31, 2019.

 

In addition, Greenberg has the option to convert up to $150,000 of the balance into a warrant that would convert on terms that are equal to (or, in certain cases, better than) the terms offered in subsequent rounds of financing.

 

As of March 31, 2018, the Company is in default under the terms of this agreement.

 

Bankruptcy Closure

 

On January 31, 2017, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of California, Neil Bason, granted the company’s unopposed motion for entry of final decree and also granted approval of the two stipulations regarding payment of court-approved fees. The Company noted that as a result, the Imaging3 Chapter 11 proceeding is now closed—the Company is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, and the case cannot be converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding.

 

To clarify, the Judge’s order in its final paragraph stated that “Notwithstanding the foregoing [order closing the bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 United States Code Section 350(a)] the bankruptcy case may be reopened on motion as set forth in the Greenberg, Glusker Fee Agreement and/or the Mentor Fee Agreement and thus the court retains jurisdiction for those purposes and as otherwise provided by law or as contemplated by the prior orders and proceedings of this court”. Thusly, technically, the case could possibly be reopened by either of those aforementioned creditors.