XML 59 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
PENDING LITIGATION/ CONTINGENT LIABILITY
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
PENDING LITIGATION/ CONTINGENT LIABILITY [Abstract]  
PENDING LITIGATION/ CONTINGENT LIABILITY
NOTE 18 – PENDING LITIGATION/CONTINGENT LIABILITY
 
On July 7, 2007, the Company and Greg Halpern, its former Chief Executive Officer in his individual capacity, were served with a complaint by Joseph Sanfilippo and James Cluck for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act and is the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $200,000.   The trial court has issued a default order against the Company, and has denied the Company’s Motion to reconsider.  Management believes that the trial court’s rulings were erroneous and that it has grounds for appeal, and that the underlying allegations are frivolous and wholly without merit and will vigorously defends the claim. The outcome of this matter is unknown as of the report date.  However, the Company has accrued a liability in the amount of $102,000 in respect to this litigation.
 
On or about December 12, 2011, the Company was sued in Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial District, Winnebago County, Illinois with a complaint by LIBCO Industries, Inc., alleging the Company breached a construction contract and tortiously interfered with a business relationship, and is seeking damages in excess of $185,000.  The case was subsequently transferred to the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, Lake County, Illinois.  Management believes that the allegations are frivolous and wholly without merit and will vigorously defend the claim.  Related to this matter, Process Piping, LLC, a sub-contractor for LIBCO Industries, filed a mechanics lien on the property leased by the Company, claiming it was owed in excess of $95,000 by LIBCO Industries.  On March 6, 2012, the Company paid $62,500 to Process Piping, LLC in exchange for a release of its lien as well as an assignment of all of its claims against LIBCO Industries. On January 31, 2013, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment on the tortious interference claim.  During the fourth quarter of 2013, the parties settled all outstanding matters and the case has been dismissed.  On January 21, 2014 as part of the settlement, the Company received $10,000 in cash and both parties provided releases of all respective claims.