Note 17 - Contingencies

In April 2023, the Company experienced a ransomware attack that impacted certain critical information technology systems. In response, we promptly deployed containment measures, including disconnecting our systems from the internet, launching an investigation with assistance from third-party cybersecurity experts, and notifying law enforcement. We adhered to our disaster recovery plan, which enabled us to maintain operations throughout the incident response process. We are in the process of evaluating the full scope of the costs and related impacts of this incident. The Company’s facilities remained open, and we continued to provide services to patients and partners. We later became aware that certain data, including names, test information, and Social Security numbers, was accessed, and in some instances, exfiltrated from the Company’s information technology systems as part of this incident. The investigation identified unauthorized access to or acquisition of clinical test information of approximately 2,470,000 individuals. The Social Security numbers of approximately 600,000 of these individuals may also have been involved. Additionally, the Company has determined that some employees’ information may have been involved. The Company has provided notice to the individuals whose information may have been involved, as well as to regulatory authorities, in accordance with applicable law.

Enzo Biochem is currently subject to regulatory inquiry from the New York Attorney General and a joint inquiry from the Connecticut and New Jersey Attorneys General.  Both inquiries ask questions about the ransomware incident, as well as the corrective actions taken in response.  It is not known at this time whether the Attorneys General will seek penalty against the Company. We are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an outcome, favorable or unfavorable, to the Company or to estimate the amount or range of any potential liability, if any, at this time.

There is also pending Class Action litigation:

In re Enzo Biochem Data Breach Litigation, No. 2:23-cv-04282 (EDNY)

In the Eastern District of New York twenty putative class actions have been consolidated alleging various harms stemming from the April 2023 data incident. Interim lead counsel has been appointed and a consolidated complaint is due to be filed on November 13, 2023. The complaints seek to certify a federal class as well as several state subclasses. Based on the individual complaints that were filed, we expect the consolidated complaint to bring various statutory and common law claims including negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New York’s General Business Law § 349, Invasion of Privacy, violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Maria Sgambati et al., v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al., Index No. 619511/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)

This is a putative class action pending in state court alleging various harms stemming from the April 2023 data incident. The complaint seeks to certify a class of New York residents. The complaint brings claims of negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing; breach of duty; breach of implied contract; and violations of New York’s Deceptive Acts and Practices § 349. We have filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the Federal Action and the motion remains pending.

Louis v. Enzo Biochem, Inc. et al., Index No. 653281/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)

This is a putative class action pending in state court alleging various harms stemming from the April 2023 data incident. The complaint seeks to certify a class of New York citizens. The complaint brings claims of for negligence; negligence per se; breach of duty, breach of implied contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and violations of New York’s Deceptive Acts and Practices § 349. We have filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the Federal Action and the motion remains pending.

A provision has been made in the financial statements for a financial contingency for the above matters based on a reasonable estimate; however, the actual exposure may differ.

On or about March 2, 2023, a verified complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County captioned Elazar Rabbani v. Mary Tagliaferri, et al., Index No. 651120/2023. The verified complaint purports to assert causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste under N.Y.B.C.L. § 720, and also seeks an accounting and certain injunctive relief. Plaintiff served a copy of the verified complaint on Enzo’s agent for service in New York on or about March 13, 2023. On August 4, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss all of the causes of action asserted in the verified complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on or about  October 4, 2023, adding, among other things, an additional cause of action for violation of N.Y.B.C.L. § 626. On October 23, 2023, Defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff sought leave to file an opposition brief. Defendants filed an opposition to that request on October 26, 2023. On October 31, 2023, in response to a question from the Court’s law clerk, Defendants reiterated that they had elected to apply their original motion to dismiss to the amended pleading. That same day, Plaintiff indicated his intent to file an opposition to that motion on or before November 6, 2023. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

The Company has brought cases in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“the Court”), alleging patent infringement against various companies. In 2017, the Court ruled that the asserted claims of the ’180 and ’405 Patents are invalid for nonenablement in cases involving Abbott, Becton Dickinson, Gen-Probe, Hologic, and Roche. That ruling was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in June 2019. Enzo subsequently filed a petition for certiorari regarding the invalidity ruling for the ’180 and ’405 Patents in February 2020; the Supreme Court denied Enzo’s petition on March 30, 2020.

The Company, along with its subsidiary Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., resolved its claims against Roche regarding the ’197 Patent before the Court (civil action No. 12 cv-00106) in July 2022. There is currently one case that was originally brought by the Company that is still pending in the Court. In that case, Enzo alleges patent infringement of the ’197 patent against Becton Dickinson Defendants. The claims in that case are stayed.

In separate inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) involving, among others, Becton Dickinson, certain claims of the ’197 Patent were found unpatentable as anticipated or obvious and cancelled by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”). Enzo appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit. On August 16, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable. The Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 30, 2019, which the Federal Circuit denied on December 4, 2019. The Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on March 3, 2020, which was denied.

In April 2019, the Company entered into an agreement with Hologic and Grifols, resolving litigation resulting from four cases originally brought by the Company in the Court.  As a result, Enzo dismissed (1) a stayed patent litigation regarding the ’180 and ’197 Patent against Hologic in the Court; (2) the Consolidated Appeals against Gen-Probe and Hologic resulting from two cases filed in the Court, and (3) the Company’s appeal in the litigation involving the ’581 Patent that involved both Hologic and Grifols. As a result of the agreement with Hologic, Hologic withdrew from Enzo’s Federal Circuit appeal of the Board’s adverse rulings in the inter partes review proceedings regarding the ’197 Patent filed by Hologic and joined by Becton Dickinson mentioned above.

On September 2, 2021, the PTO issued a non-final office action in an ex parte reexamination concerning the ’197 Patent. In the office action, the PTO rejected certain claims of the ’197 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and for nonstatutory double-patenting. Enzo responded to the office action on January 3, 2022, and the proceeding remains pending. Becton Dickinson requested another ex parte reexamination concerning the ’197 patent on July 26, 2022. On September 16, 2022, the PTO ordered that ex parte reexamination as to certain claims of the ’197 patent and has not yet issued an office action. Enzo filed a petition to terminate that second reexamination proceeding on November 16, 2022.

On November 27, 2020, the Company brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Harbert Discovery Fund, LP, Harbert Discovery Co-Investment Fund I, LP, Harbert Fund Advisors, Inc., Harbert Management Corp. and Kenan Lucas (together, “Harbert”). The Company alleged Harbert made false and misleading representations, or omitted to state material facts necessary to make their statements not misleading, in proxy materials they disseminated seeking the election to the Company’s Board of Directors at its 2019 Annual Meeting of two candidates they nominated, in violation of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder. The Company sought damages and injunctive relief. On October 12, 2021, HDF filed five counterclaims against the Company and present and former directors Dr. Elazar Rabbani, Barry W. Weiner, Dr. Bruce A. Hanna, Dov Perlysky, Rebeca Fischer, Dr. Mary Tagliaferri and Dr. Ian B. Walters. HDF claimed the Company made false and misleading representations in proxy materials it disseminated in connection with its 2019 Annual Meeting, in violation of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and that the Company’s directors at that time were liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for the Company’s purported misstatements. HDF also claimed that current and former Company directors breached their fiduciary duties by taking four corporate actions: (a) adjourning the 2019 meeting for 25 days; (b) purportedly causing the two Harbert candidates for director, who were elected at the 2019 Meeting, to resign in November 2020; (c) authorizing the November 27, 2020 Lawsuit; and (d) not accepting Dr. Rabbani’s resignation as a director in March 2021. On November 10, 2021, the Company and the other counterclaim defendants moved to dismiss HDF’s counterclaims. On December 9, 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss HDF’s counterclaims except HDF’s Section 14(a) claim against the Company concerning its statement that it intended to “delay” the 2019 Annual Meeting, and HDF’s Section 20(a) and breach of fiduciary duty counterclaims against Dr. Elazar Rabbani, Barry W. Weiner, Dr. Bruce Hanna, Dov Perlysky and Rebecca Fischer with respect to that statement. The Court allowed HDF to move for leave to replead with respect to its dismissed counterclaims. On June 7, 2022, the Court “so ordered” a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of the Company’s claims against Harbert Discovery Fund, LP, Harbert Discovery Co-Investment Fund I, LP, Harbert Fund Advisors, Inc., Harbert Management Corp., and Kenan Lucas, and HDF’s counterclaims against the Company, Dr. Bruce Hanna, Dov Perlysky, Rebecca Fischer, Dr. Ian B. Walters and Dr. Mary Tagliaferri. The only remaining claims were HDF’s counterclaims against Dr. Rabbani and Mr. Weiner. HDF asked the Court to dismiss those claims without prejudice. Dr. Rabbani and Mr. Weiner asked the Court to dismiss those counterclaims with prejudice and to allow them to take discovery from HDF, the Company, and possibly others. On December 1, 2022, the court granted HDF’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, denied Dr. Rabbani and Mr. Weiner’s motion to compel discovery, and directed the Clerk of the Court to close this case.

On or about September 26, 2023, James G. Wolf, Individually and as the Trustee of the Wolf Family Charitable Foundation, Barbaranne R. Wolf, Stephen Paul Wolf, and Preston M. Wolf initiated an appraisal action against Enzo Biochem, Inc. in the New York Supreme Court for Suffolk County. Petitioners seek an appraisal of the value of their shares in the Company. The amount of damages sought by the Petitioners is unspecified. The Company will defend itself vigorously in the appraisal action.

In our discontinued Clinical Labs operations, third-party payers, including government programs, may decide to deny payment or recoup payments for testing that they contend was improperly billed or not medically necessary, against their coverage determinations, or for which they believe they have otherwise overpaid (including as a result of their own error), and we may be required to refund payments that we received.

Former executives arbitration

The Company terminated the employment of Elazar Rabbani, Ph.D., the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, effective April 21, 2022.  Dr. Rabbani remains a board director of the Company. Dr. Rabbani is a party to an employment agreement with the Company that entitles him to certain termination benefits, including severance pay, acceleration of vesting of share-based compensation, and continuation of benefits. Based on the terms of his employment agreement, the Company estimated and accrued a charge of $2,600 in fiscal year 2022 which is included in Selling, general and administrative expenses. The charge was partially offset by the reversal of bonus accruals. In May 2022, the Company paid Dr. Rabbani $2,123 in severance (the payment constituted taxable income but the Company did not withhold taxes from the payment). In July 2022, the Company paid Dr. Rabbani’s income and other withholding taxes of $1,024 related to that payment on Dr. Rabbani’s behalf, which was included in “prepaid expense and other current assets” as of July 31, 2022, as the payment is reimbursable from Dr. Rabbani. Dr. Rabbani disputed, among other things, the Company’s decision to not award him a bonus for fiscal year 2021 and the amount of severance that was owed to him under his employment agreement.  On July 8, 2022, the Company filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Company has fully satisfied its contractual obligations to Dr. Rabbani and seeking the tax withholding reimbursement referenced above.  On August 4, 2022, Dr. Rabbani filed counterclaims in the arbitration seeking, among other things, a bonus for fiscal year 2021 and additional severance that he asserts is owed to him. At the parties’ joint request, the arbitration has been stayed while the parties work towards resolving the matter.

On February 25, 2022, Barry Weiner, the Company’s co-founder and President, notified the Company that he was terminating his employment as President of the Company for “Good Reason” as defined in his employment agreement. The Company accepted Mr. Weiner’s termination, effective April 19, 2022, but disagreed with Mr. Weiner’s assertion regarding “Good Reason.” On October 24, 2023, the Company and Mr. Weiner reached an agreement resolving the dispute.

A provision has been made in the financial statements for these matters based on a reasonable estimate; however, the actual exposure may differ.