Item 1. Legal Proceedings
ITEM
1: Legal Proceedings
Please see Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings in
our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022.
Additionally, we
commenced an action against BioLife in December of 2017 for Breach of Contract in the Court of Common Pleas. The amount of damages sought
include the lost profits from the alleged breach or the amount we paid and expended in reliance on BioLife’s fulfillment of the
contract. None of the claimed damages are covered by insurance. Defendant BioLife has filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses and a Counterclaim
in the amount of $96,676 representing the Invoices unpaid after BioLife notified the Company that they were not intending to fulfill
the balance of the contract. The Company denies the allegations of the counterclaim, which we believe will now lead to a trial date in
the later part of 2023. The Court recently issued an Order and Decision on pending cross Motions for Summary Judgment. As per the Opinion,
the Court Denied AIM’s Motion for Summary Judgment, essentially ruling that the Defendant’s asserted breach of the Contract
is an issue of fact to be disputed at trial because BioLife might prove that its termination of the contract was unavoidable as a result
of the loss of blood suppliers. The Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that AIM cannot show
that its loss of profits for sale of Alfernon was caused by Biolife’s alleged breach. The Court further ruled that AIM properly
pled the alternative damage theory of reliance damages. The Court’s Order is inconsistent with the Opinion, in that it appears
to grant the Defendant’s Motion as to all claims, while the Opinion preserves the reliance damage theory. The Company intends to
seek reconsideration of the Opinion prior to an as-yet-unscheduled trial, and, if unsuccessful, the matters will be reviewed on appeal.
The matter will proceed to trial at some future date which has not been scheduled. The outstanding amounts do not fall within the materiality
threshold of the Company.
On April 20, 2023, in the action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, entitled
Jonathan Thomas Jorgl vs. AIM Immuno Tech Inc, Thomas K. Equels, William Mitchell and Stewart Appelrouth, Jonathan Jorgl filed a Motion
to Dismiss his Complaint as moot. While we and the director defendants do not oppose dismissal of Jorgl’s claims, we have
requested that the Court retain jurisdiction so that we can file a motion seeking reimbursement of our legal fees and expenses from Jorgl.
37
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.