9.	Commitments and Contingencies

Office Space Rental

The Company leases office and laboratory facilities in Charlottesville, Virginia under a month-to-month cancelable operating lease. Rent expense related to the operating lease was $18,200 and $16,500 for the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively and $53,500 and $49,500 for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

In connection with the acquisition of RestorGenex in January 2016 (see Note 4), the Company assumed leased office space totaling approximately 2,900 square feet in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. The term of the lease commenced on September 15, 2014 and will continue through February 28, 2018. Rent expense related to the operating lease was $15,300 and $61,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, the Company vacated these leased premises and recorded an associated rent liability pursuant to Accounting Standard Codification Topic 420,

Exit or Disposal Cost Obligations (ASC 420)

. At September 30, 2016, the rent liability was $19,403 and is included in other liabilities.

The Company’s contractual obligations with respect to rental commitment in Illinois as of September 30, 2016 was as follows:

	Rental Commitments
Payments due by period:
One year	$	75,300
Two years		31,600
Three years		—
Thereafter		—
Total	$	106,900

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is subject to various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings, including those that arise in the ordinary course of its business, which may include employment matters, breach of contract disputes and stockholder litigation. Such actions and proceedings are subject to many uncertainties and to outcomes that are not predictable with assurance and that may not be known for extended periods of time. The Company records a liability in its unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements for costs related to claims, including future legal costs, settlements and judgments, when the Company has assessed that a loss is probable and an amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, the Company records the most probable estimate of the loss or the minimum amount when no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The Company discloses a contingent liability even if the liability is not probable or the amount is not estimable, or both, if there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss may have been incurred. In the opinion of management, as of September 30, 2016, the amount of liability, if any, with respect to these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not materially affect the Company’s unaudited interim condensed consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

On August 7, 2014, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California by Paul Feller, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer under the caption

Paul Feller v. RestorGenex Corporation, Pro Sports & Entertainment, Inc., ProElite, Inc. and Stratus Media Group, GmbH

(Case No. BC553996). The complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other things, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of employment agreement, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the California Labor Code and common counts. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, compensatory damages in an undetermined amount, punitive damages, accrued interest and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 30, 2014, the Company filed a petition to compel arbitration and a motion to stay the action. On April 1, 2015, the plaintiff filed a petition in opposition to the Company’s petition to compel arbitration and a motion to stay the action. After a hearing for the petition and motion on April 14, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s petition to compel arbitration and a motion to stay the action. On January 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association. No arbitration hearing has yet been scheduled. The Company believes this matter is without merit and intends to defend the arbitration vigorously. Because this matter is in an early stage, the Company is unable to predict its outcome and the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with its resolution or any potential effect the matter may have on the Company’s financial position. Depending on the outcome or resolution of this matter, it could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.

On September 21, 2015, David Schmidt, a former member of Diffusion LLC and current stockholder of the Company, filed suit (the “Original Complaint”) in the Circuit Court for Albemarle County, Virginia (Case. No. CL15-791, David G. Schmidt v. Diffusion Pharmaceuticals LLC), which Complaint was amended on April 14, 2016 (the “Amended Complaint”). In December 2009, Mr. Schmidt purchased a $1.5 million convertible promissory note from Diffusion LLC which he elected to immediately convert in full into membership units at the contractual per-unit conversion price of $3.50. In 2012, Diffusion LLC negotiated a reduction of the conversion price, from $3.50 to $1.00, with respect to the notes in such series that remained outstanding at such time. The Original Complaint alleged that this renegotiation represented a breach of contract with respect to Mr. Schmidt’s previously converted convertible note, and requested relief of specific performance requiring Diffusion LLC to issue him an additional 1,071,432.50 units, representing the additional number of units he would have received had he converted at the renegotiated conversion price. The claim was dismissed on March 14, 2016 for failure to state a viable cause of action, but Mr. Schmidt was given 21 days to file an amended complaint. The Amended Complaint alleged that Mr. Schmidt was denied the opportunity to exercise preemptive rights under Diffusion LLC’s Operating Agreement to purchase the additional 1,071,432.50 units for $1 per unit. The sole relief sought by Mr. Schmidt was an order of specific performance requiring the Company to issue him 391,358 shares of the Common Stock (the equivalent of 1,071,432.50 Diffusion Units multiplied by the Exchange Ratio) in exchange for his payment of $1,071,432.50.

On September 27, 2016, the Company, Diffusion LLC, Mr. Schmidt and the other parties thereto entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) pursuant to which, among other things, (i) Mr. Schmidt and Diffusion each agreed to submit a consent order to the Court dismissing all claims set forth in the Amended Complaint with prejudice and without an admission of liability by any party, (ii) Mr. Schmidt and Diffusion each released, on behalf of such party and its heirs, assigns, representatives, affiliates and agents, all claims and causes of action of any nature against the other party existing as of the date of the Settlement Agreement and (iii) as consideration therefor, the Company agreed to issue and sell, to Mr. Schmidt and the other parties to the Settlement Agreement, the 2016 Convertible Notes in an aggregate principal amount of $1,880,000.

The Company recognized a litigation settlement charge of $2,500,000 which represents the difference between the fair value of the 2016 Convertible Notes issued and the cash received from Mr. Schmidt and other parties. The settlement charge was recorded as a component of general and administrative expenses within the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016.