Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Legal Proceedings [Abstract]

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

NOTE 12 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is not currently aware of any pending or threatened legal proceeding to which it is or would be a party, or any proceedings being contemplated by governmental authorities against it, or any of its executive officers or directors relating to the services performed on the Company’s behalf, except as follows.

On December 11, 2008, the Company received notice that a complaint had been filed in a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of 59 persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing terms agreement, or FTA, dated April 11, 2006, captioned Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith in connection with the alleged failure to register certain securities issued in the FTA, and the redemption of the Company’s Class A warrants in November 2008. The lawsuit seeks damages related to the failure to register certain securities, including alleged late fee payments, of approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified damages related to the redemption of the Class A warrants. In February 2009, the Company filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint. On October 7, 2009, the Court concluded that Leeseberg has properly stated a claim for actual damages resulting from the Company’s alleged breach of contract, but that Leeseberg has failed to state claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and the Court dismissed such claims. On November 6, 2009, the Company filed its answer to the Complaint with the Court. On March 4, 2010, the parties participated in a conference, and began discussing discovery issues. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on June 22, 2010, which was denied on November 22, 2010. On March 3, 2011, the court denied the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment. On March 25, 2011, some individual investors filed a new complaint against the Company asserting similar claims to those in the Leeseberg litigation. The Court consolidated this case with the existing lawsuit and, on May 12, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On June 6, 2011, the Company filed its answer to consolidated complaint and counter claims against Plaintiffs. The Parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations and have reached a settlement agreement. It is anticipated that the settlement will be funded by the insurance provider and, accordingly, no loss has been recorded related to these matters.

Related to the above matter, in December 2009, the Company filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk, captioned Converted Organics Inc. v. Holland & Knight LLP. The Company claims that in the event it is required to pay any monies to Mr. Leeseberg and his proposed class in the matter of Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc., that Holland & Knight should make the Company whole, because its handling of the registration of the securities at issue in the Leeseberg lawsuit caused any loss that Mr. Leeseberg and other putative class members claim to have suffered. Holland & Knight has not yet responded to the complaint. Holland and Knight has threatened to bring counterclaims against Converted Organics for legal fees allegedly owed, which we would contest vigorously. On May 12, 2010, the Superior Court stayed the proceedings, pending resolution of the Leeseberg litigation. At this early stage in the case, the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or estimate any loss/gain.

On May 19, 2009, the Company received notice that a complaint had been filed in the Middlesex County Superior Court of New Jersey, captioned Lefcourt Associates, Ltd. v. Converted Organics of Woodbridge, et al. The lawsuit alleged private and public nuisances, negligence, continuing trespasses and consumer common-law fraud in connection with the odors emanating from the Woodbridge facility and its alleged, intentional failure to disclose to adjacent property owners the possibility of the facility causing pollution and was later amended to allege adverse possession, acquiescence and easement. The lawsuit sought enjoinment of any and all operations which in any way cause or contribute to the alleged pollution, compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees and costs of suit and any and all other relief the Court deems equitable and just. On April 12, 2010, the Middlesex County Superior Court of New Jersey issued an administrative order settlement dismissing without prejudice the matter of Lefcourt Associates, Ltd. v. Converted Organics of Woodbridge, et al. On June 8, 2010, Lefcourt Associates, Ltd re-filed their lawsuit but before a different court, the Chancery Division in Bergen County. The Company filed a motion to transfer the action back to the original court in Middlesex County, which was granted and sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, which was granted in part on August 27, 2010. The Court limited the plaintiff’s claims to the events in part that occurred after the dismissal of the prior action. Plaintiffs’ appealed the order dismissing their first lawsuit with prejudice, and the appellate court reversed the dismissal with prejudice but the first lawsuit still remains dismissed without prejudice. Due to the appellate decision, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the decision made in the action, which was granted in part on July 28, 2011. The nuisance damages issue was reopened for 60 days. At the expiration of the 60 day period, we renewed the summary judgement motion, our motion for summary judgement was granted on November 4, 2011 and the only claim that remains before the court is the plantiffs right to make an application for legal fees. We plan to vigorously defend this matter and are unable to estimate any losses that may be incurred as a result of this litigation and upon its eventual disposition. Accordingly, no loss has been recorded related to this matter.

On August 25, 2011, TerraSphere, Inc, our wholly owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in an action filed in the United States district court for the eastern district of Michigan against TerraSphere Systems, LLC and TerraSphere, Inc. The plantiff, alleges, among other things breach of fiduciary responsibilities regarding a joint venture agreement. The parties have agreed to an extension until November 30, 2011 to try and resolve the matter. In the event that the lawsuit can’t be resolved we plan to vigorously defend this matter. At this time we are unable to estimate any losses that may be incurred as a result of this litigation and upon its eventual disposition. Accordingly, no loss has been recorded relating to this matter.