Litigation

Due to the nature of the businesses in which the Company is engaged it is subject to certain risks. Such risks include, among others, risk of liability for personal injury or death to persons using products the Company promotes or commercializes. There can be no assurance that substantial claims or liabilities will not arise in the future due to the nature of the Company’s business activities and recent increases in litigation related to healthcare products. As part of the closeout of its Contract Sales Organization (CSO), the Company seeks to reduce its potential liability under its service agreements through measures such as contractual indemnification provisions with customers (the scope of which may vary from customer to customer, and the performance of which is not secured) and insurance. The Company could, however, also be held liable for errors and omissions of its employees in connection with the services it performs that are outside the scope of any indemnity or insurance policy. The Company could be materially adversely affected if it were required to pay damages or incur defense costs in connection with a claim that is outside the scope of an indemnification agreement; if the indemnity, although applicable, is not performed in accordance with its terms; or if the Company’s liability exceeds the amount of applicable insurance or indemnity.

The Company routinely assesses its litigation and threatened litigation as to the probability of ultimately incurring a liability, and records its best estimate of the ultimate loss in situations where the Company assesses the likelihood of loss as probable. The Company accrues for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In addition, in the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, as applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss, indicate that the estimate is immaterial with respect to its financial statements as a whole or, if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made. As of March 31, 2017, the Company’s accrual for litigation and threatened litigation was not material to the consolidated financial statements.

In connection with the October 31, 2014 acquisition of RedPath, the Company assumed a liability for the Settlement Agreement entered into by the former owners of RedPath with the DOJ. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company is obligated to make payments to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the calendar years ended December 31, 2014 through 2017, up to a maximum of $3.0 million.

Payments are due March 31st following the calendar year that the revenue milestones are achieved. In May 2016, the Company renegotiated payment terms with the DOJ related to a $250,000 payment associated with performance in fiscal 2014 that resulted in an agreement that the Company pay $85,000 on July 31, 2016, $85,000 on October 31, 2016 and $80,000 on February 28, 2017. For the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the Company has accrued $625,000 related to the Settlement Agreement based on its estimate of the potential liability.

Prolias Technologies, Inc. v. PDI, Inc.

On April 8, 2015, Prolias Technologies, Inc.(“Prolias”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against the Company with the Superior Court of New Jersey (Morris County) in a matter entitled Prolias Technologies, Inc. v. PDI, Inc. (Docket No. MRS-L-899-15). In the Complaint, Prolias alleges that it and the Company entered into an August 19, 2013 Collaboration Agreement and a First Amendment thereto (collectively, the “Agreement”) whereby Prolias and the Company agreed to work in good faith to commercialize a diagnostic test known as “Thymira.” Thymira is a minimally invasive diagnostic test that is being developed to detect thyroid cancer. Prolias alleges in the Complaint that the Company wrongfully terminated the Agreement, breached obligations owed to it and committed torts. After various motions on October 13, 2016, the Company filed an application to enter final judgment and taxing of costs against Prolias. The Company requested that the Court enter final judgment against Prolias and for the Company in the amount of $621,236, plus ten percent interest continuing to accrue on the principal balance of $500,000 unless and until paid, attorneys’ fees and costs of $390,769, and a declaratory judgment that Prolias is deemed to have executed and delivered to the Company a promissory note in the amount of $1,000,000 under Article 10.2(a) of the Collaboration Agreement. On November 17, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s application without prejudice and with leave to refile.

On February 16, 2017, the Company refiled its application for final judgment, and on March 9, 2017, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a final judgment in the Company’s favor against Prolias for the sum of $636,053 plus ten percent interest continuing to accrue on the principal balance of $500,000 (per diem $136.99) unless and until paid. Final judgment was also entered in the Company’s favor, and against Prolias, declaring Prolias is deemed to have executed and delivered to the Company a promissory note in the amount of $1,000,000 and Prolias is obligated to repay the Company the principal amount and all interest in accordance with the terms of the promissory note and Article 10.2(a) of the Collaboration Agreement by and between Prolias and the Company. On March 17, 2017, the Company requested that the final judgment against Prolias be recorded as a statewide lien. No assurance can be given that the Company will be able to recover on the judgment against Prolias.

Swann v. Akorn, Inc., and Interpace Diagnostics Group, Inc.

On May 27, 2016, Michael J. Swann, one of the Company’s former employees, filed a complaint against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in South Carolina in a matter entitled Michael J. Swann v. Akorn, Inc.(“Akorn”), and Interpace Diagnostic Group Inc. (Civil Action No. 2016-CP-40-03362). In the complaint, Mr. Swann alleges, among other things, that he was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated as a member of a sales force marketing pharmaceutical products of Akorn, because of an illness suffered by Mr. Swann. Mr. Swann alleges that he was discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act/Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act and the Family Medical Leave Act and seeks damages for back pay, reinstatement, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount not less than $300,000, attorney’s fees and costs. The Company denies that it is liable to Mr. Swann for any of the claims asserted and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims. On May 10, 2017 the Company received a settlement letter and paid the plaintiff $3,000.

Severance

In 2015, in connection with the sale of the majority of the CSO business and the implementation of a broad-based program to maximize efficiencies and cut costs, the Company reduced headcount and incurred severance obligations to terminated employees that amounted to approximately $3.7 million.

During the first quarter ended March 31, 2016 the Company recorded additional severance obligations as it continued to right-size the organization and wind down its CSO business. The Company recorded obligations of $1.1 million, $0.5 million of which was recorded in continuing operations.

The severance liability as of December 31, 2016 was approximately $3.1 million, of which $2.2 million resides in continuing operations and $0.9 million is in discontinued operations. In January 2017, five former executives agreed to a settlement of their severance obligations agreeing to 35% of the total amount due them. These remaining obligations were paid out in February 2017 in payments totaling approximately $1.0 million. As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a reversal of expense of approximately $2.0 million. Within continuing operations, $1.5 million of expense was reversed and was recorded in general and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) and $0.5 million was recorded in discontinued operations. The Company has no currently payable severance obligations as of March 31, 2017.