Note 13 – Contingencies

On June 7, 2004, the Company and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Applera Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary Tropix, Inc., which became Life Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:LIFE) and was acquired by Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:TMO) on February 3, 2014. The complaint alleged infringement of six patents relating to DNA sequencing systems, labeled nucleotide products, and other technology. Yale University is the owner of four of the patents and the Company is the exclusive licensee. These four patents are commonly referred to as the “Ward” patents. On November 12, 2012, a jury in New Haven found that one of these patents (United States Patent No. 5,449,667) was infringed and not proven invalid. The jury awarded $48.5 million for this infringement. On January 6, 2014, the judge awarded prejudgment interest of approximately $12.5 million and additional post-interest on the full amount will also be awarded starting November 7, 2012 until the total award is satisfied.  The final award to Enzo could be reduced or be subject to possible claims from third parties. On February 3, 2014, Life Technologies filed a notice of appeal and the case was argued to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 6, 2014. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in this litigation. Even if the Company is not successful, management does not believe that there will be a significant adverse monetary impact on the Company.

As of August 1, 2014, the Company was engaged in litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against two parties (and certain of their related companies), Roche Diagnostic GmbH (“Roche”), as plaintiff and declaratory judgment defendant, and Molecular Probes, Inc. (“Molecular Probes”). These cases were commenced in May 2004 and May 2003, respectively. The Company has asserted similar (with some differences) causes of action against Roche and Molecular Probes in these two cases. Roche and Molecular Probes each seeks a declaratory judgment of non-breach and patent invalidity against the Company. Roche has also asserted tort claims against the Company. The two cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in 2004 and there has been extensive discovery. In 2011, Roche and Molecular Probes moved for summary judgment of non-infringement regarding the Company’s patent claims. In 2012, those motions were granted in part and denied in part. In December 2012, Roche and Molecular Probes moved for summary judgment on the Company’s non-patent claims. Additional discovery was taken and the Company responded to the motions in May 2013. On December 6, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Roche’s summary judgment motion. On October 22, 2014, the Court ordered that damages discovery concerning the Company’s remaining contract and patent claims and Roche’s claims should be completed by January 30, 2015, and expert discovery should be completed following the Court’s not-yet-issued claim construction ruling relating to two of the Company’s patents asserted against Roche. Also on December 6, 2013, the Court granted Molecular Probes’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Company’s non-patent claims and its claims concerning one of its patents. The Company continues to assert patent infringement claims against Molecular Probes concerning several other patents.

On June 20, 2014 the Company, as plaintiff finalized and executed a settlement agreement with PerkinElmer, Inc., and PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc. (formerly known as PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc.) (together, “PerkinElmer”), with respect to an action between the Company and PerkinElmer before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No 03-CV-3817. PerkinElmer paid $7.0 million in escrow pursuant to the agreement because of a former attorney’s motion requesting a charging lien for fees allegedly owed for past services rendered to the Company. Because the settlement proceeds are held in escrow, the Company did not include the settlement or any additional amounts which may be payable to the attorney in the financial statements as of and for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014 or for the three months ended October 31, 2014.

As previously disclosed, in 2012, the Company received a Subpoena Duces Tecum (the “Subpoena”) from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). The Subpoena was issued as part of an investigation being conducted by the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York in conjunction with the OIG. While a number of potential issues were raised initially by the government, the investigation came to focus primarily on an alleged failure to collect diagnosis codes from physicians who ordered tests through Enzo Clinical Labs. The time period initially covered by the investigation was from 2004 through 2011. In response to the Subpoena, the Company cooperated with the government. On September 22, 2014, the Company and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement to resolve this matter, in substantive form as disclosed in the Company’s fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2014. During the quarter ended April, 30, 2014, the Company recorded a charge of $2.0 million in the statement of operations under legal settlements, net within the Clinical Labs segment. The settlement amount will be paid with interest over a five-year period. As of October 31, 2014, the Company made a payment of $0.4 million and carried a balance of $0.4 million as other current liabilities and $1.2 million as a non-current liability. Under certain circumstances, the Company may be required to accelerate payments and/or pay up to an additional $1.5 million based upon (i) a favorable recovery and collection related to the judgment in the Life Technologies matter discussed above, (ii) receipt of additional capital greater than $10.0 million in a fiscal year (in that case, the Company is required to pay 20% of any amount over $10.0 million plus interest, or (iii) sale of the Company. The final settlement covers the time period 2004-2014.

The Company is party to other claims, legal actions, complaints, and contractual disputes that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that any liability that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations