Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies  
Commitments and Contingencies

 

13 — Commitments and Contingencies

 

Leases.  We have entered into noncancelable operating leases for our facilities.

 

In January 2014, we entered into a lease, commencing July 1, 2014, for a new facility in Winter Springs, Florida owned by Susi, LLC, an entity controlled by our president and CEO, Roger Susi. Pursuant to the terms of our lease for this property, the monthly base rent will be $32,616, adjusted annually for changes in the consumer price index. The term of the lease expires on May 31, 2019. The lease will automatically renew for two successive terms of five years each beginning in 2019 and again in 2024, and thereafter, will be renewed for successive terms of one year each.

 

Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $400,807 and $284,210, respectively. Minimum lease payments for each of our operating leases are even throughout their respective lease term.

 

Future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2015 are as follows:

 

 

 

Operating
Leases

 

2016

 

$

393,252 

 

2017

 

392,617 

 

2018

 

392,617 

 

2019

 

163,080 

 

2020

 

 

Thereafter

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total minimum lease payments

 

$

1,341,566 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purchase commitments.  We had various purchase orders for goods or services totaling approximately $3,564,088 at December 31, 2015. No amounts related to these purchase orders have been recognized in our balance sheet.

 

Indemnifications.  Under our amended and restated bylaws, we have agreed to indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences arising as a result of the officer or director serving in such capacity. We have a director and officer liability insurance policy that limits our exposure under these indemnifications and enables us to recover a portion of any future loss arising out of them.

 

In addition, in the normal course of business, we enter into contracts that contain indemnification clauses whereby the Company indemnifies our customers against damages associated with product failures. We have determined that these agreements fall within the scope of ASC 460, Guarantees. We have obtained liability insurance providing coverage that limits our exposure for these indemnified matters. We have not incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnities. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnities is minimal and have not recorded a liability for these agreements as of December 31, 2015.

 

Legal matters.  We may from time to time become a party to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that any current legal or administrative proceedings are likely to have a material effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

 

On September 10, 2014, a Civil Action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“Lam Civil Action”). The Lam Civil Action was a putative class action lawsuit brought against the Company and certain individuals who are officers and / or directors of the Company. The plaintiff was an alleged shareholder of the Company, and in the operative complaint sought relief on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock during the period from July 15, 2014 through September 17, 2014. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that the putative class members suffered damages as a result. The complaint additionally alleged “control person” liability against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company disputed the plaintiff’s allegations and theories of liability. On May 26, 2015, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On June 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The appeal was dismissed with prejudice by the Court of Appeals on October 28, 2015 on joint motion of the parties.

 

In October 2012, Radimed Gesellschaft für Kommunikationsdienstleistungen und Medizintechnik mbH (“Radimed”) brought an action in Düsseldorf Regional Court against our German distributor alleging the name and sign “iRadimed” was confusingly similar to their German trademark “Radimed.” A judgment was rendered against our German distributor preventing use of the name and sign “iRadimed” in Germany. We have however continued to sell products in Germany without any discernible effect by using the name IRI Development. On July 31, 2013, Radimed filed a lawsuit against us and our founder, Roger Susi, in Düsseldorf Regional Court, alleging that we infringed their German and Community trademarks “Radimed” and seeking to prevent our use of the name, sign and domain name “iRadimed” in the European Union. In March 2015, we settled this matter and paid the amount that had been accrued during 2014. Pursuant to this settlement, we may continue to use the name “iRadimed” and our associated signs and domain name in the European Union.