Subsequent Event |
3 Months Ended | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar. 31, 2016 | |||||||||
Subsequent Events [Abstract] | |||||||||
Subsequent Event |
We did not achieve the 2015 annual Lymphoseek sales revenue target of $11 million as initially established under the CRG Loan Agreement, but in December 2015 CRG agreed to a reduction of that target to $10 million (Amendment 1) and we were able to meet that reduced target with Lymphoseek sales revenue of $10.3 million, thereby complying with the covenant. On April 22, 2016 we received an additional notice (the Second Notice) from CRG, pursuant to the CRG Loan Agreement. The Second Notice claims that Amendment 1 is invalid due to the existence of Events of Default at the time of its execution in December 2015 which were not disclosed to CRG at that time. Consequently, CRG claimed that the Company failed to satisfy Section 3(b) of Amendment 1 in order for Amendment 1 to become effective and breached Section 4(a)(iii) of Amendment 1, and as such, Amendment 1 is of no effect and the Company is bound by the 2015 annual Lymphoseek sales revenue target of $11 million as originally set forth in the CRG Loan Agreement. Since the Company’ 2015 Lymphoseek sales revenue was $10.3 million, the Second Notice claims that an additional Event of Default has occurred under Section 11.01(d) of the CRG Loan Agreement. On April 28, 2016, the Company received a further notice (the Third Notice) from CRG informing the Company that CRG commenced exercising its remedies, including with respect to cash collateral. In that regard, CRG informed the Company that it had delivered notices to exercise control of the Company’s accounts pursuant to the blocked account control and pledge collateral account control agreements with CRG. On May 2, 2016, the Company successfully sought a temporary restraining order in Harris County Court, Texas, in which the court enjoined CRG from causing any further “freeze” of the Company’s accounts and required CRG to restore the accounts to the position they were in prior to CRG’s April 28, 2016 acts, pending a more complete review of the Company’s and CRG’s positions in the lawsuit in a hearing scheduled for May 19, 2016. The Company is maintaining its position that the alleged claims do not constitute Events of Default under the Loan Agreement and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The Company continues to evaluate its options, including the possible assertion of counterclaims. However, if the Company does not prevail in these legal proceedings, CRG may invoke any and all remedies available to it under the loan agreement and the related security agreement, including acceleration of the maturity of our indebtedness, which could materially adversely affect our ability to continue as a going concern. Based on CRG’s claims that the Company is in default under the terms of the CRG Loan Agreement, and in accordance with current accounting guidance, the Company has classified the net balance of the CRG Term Loan as a current liability as of March 31, 2016.
|