Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	*Legal proceedings* On December 29, 2016, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming Elysium Health, Inc. (together with Elysium Health, LLC, “Elysium”) as defendant. Among other allegations, ChromaDex, Inc. alleged in the Complaint that (i) Elysium breached the Supply Agreement, dated June 26, 2014, by and between ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium (the “pTeroPure® Supply Agreement”), by failing to make payments to ChromaDex, Inc. for purchases of pTeroPure® pursuant to the pTeroPure® Supply Agreement, (ii) Elysium breached the Supply Agreement, dated February 3, 2014, by and between ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium, as amended (the “NIAGEN® Supply Agreement”), by failing to make payments to ChromaDex, Inc. for purchases of NIAGEN® pursuant to the NIAGEN® Supply Agreement, (iii) Elysium breached the Trademark License and Royalty Agreement, dated February 3, 2014, by and between ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium (the “License Agreement”), by failing to make payments to ChromaDex, Inc. for royalties due pursuant to the License Agreement and (iv) certain officers of Elysium made false promises and representations to induce ChromaDex, Inc. into providing large supplies of pTeroPure® and NIAGEN® to Elysium pursuant to the pTeroPure® Supply Agreement and NIAGEN® Supply Agreement. ChromaDex, Inc. is seeking punitive damages, money damages and interest. On January 25, 2017, Elysium filed an answer and counterclaims (the “Counterclaim”) in response to the Complaint. Among other allegations, Elysium alleges in the Counterclaim that (i) ChromaDex, Inc. breached the NIAGEN® Supply Agreement by not issuing certain refunds or credits to Elysium and for violating certain confidential information provisions, (ii) ChromaDex, Inc. breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to the NIAGEN® Supply Agreement, (iii) ChromaDex, Inc. breached certain confidential provisions of the pTeroPure® Supply Agreement, (iv) ChromaDex, Inc. fraudulently induced Elysium into entering into the License Agreement (the “Fraud Claim”), (v) ChromaDex, Inc.’s conduct constitutes misuse of its patent rights (the “Patent Claim”) and (vi) ChromaDex, Inc. has engaged in unlawful or unfair competition under California state law (the “Unfair Competition Claim”). Elysium is seeking damages for ChromaDex, Inc.’s alleged breaches of the NIAGEN® Supply Agreement and pTeroPure® Supply Agreement, and compensatory damages, punitive damages and/or rescission of the License Agreement and restitution of any royalty payments conveyed by Elysium pursuant to the License Agreement, and a declaratory judgement that ChromaDex, Inc. has engaged in patent misuse. On February 15, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, ChromaDex, Inc. re-alleges the claims in the Complaint, and also alleges that Elysium willfully and maliciously misappropriated ChromaDex, Inc.’s trade secrets. On February 15, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. also filed a motion to dismiss the Fraud Claim, the Patent Claim and the Unfair Competition Claim. On March 1, 2017, Elysium filed a motion to dismiss ChromaDex, Inc.'s fraud and trade secret misappropriation causes of action. On March 6, 2017, Elysium filed a first amended counterclaim. On March 20, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. moved to dismiss Elysium's amended fraud, patent misuse and the Unfair Competition Claim. On May 10, 2017, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, denying ChromaDex, Inc.’s motion as to Elysium’s fraud and patent misuse claims and granting ChromaDex, Inc.’s motion with prejudice as to Elysium’s Unfair Competition Claim. With respect to Elysium’s motion, the court granted the motion with prejudice as to ChromaDex, Inc.’s fraud claim and granted with leave to amend the motion as to ChromaDex, Inc.’s trade secret misappropriation claims. On May 24, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. answered the first amended counterclaim and asserted several affirmative defenses. Also on May 24, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a second amended complaint, amending the trade secret misappropriation claims and addressing Elysium’s patent misuse counterclaim. On June 7, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a third amended complaint dismissing the trade secret misappropriation claims and asserting two breach of contract claims for Elysium’s failure to pay for the product delivered. On June 16, 2017, Elysium answered the third amended complaint. On August 14, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. moved for judgment on the pleadings as to Elysium’s declaratory judgment of patent misuse counterclaim. On September 26, 2017, the court denied ChromaDex’s motion without prejudice and directed Elysium to file an amended counterclaim if it intended to maintain its declaratory judgment counterclaim. On October 11, 2017, Elysium filed a second amended counterclaim, re-alleging the claims in the first amended counterclaim and adding a claim for unjust enrichment and restitution of the royalties Elysium paid to ChromaDex, Inc. pursuant to the License Agreement. On October 25, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment of patent misuse and unjust enrichment claims and/or strike allegations in the unjust enrichment claim contained in the second amended counterclaim. The court has not yet ruled on the motion. On July 17, 2017, Elysium filed petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,197,807 and 8,383,086, patents to which ChromaDex, Inc. is the exclusive licensee. On September 27, 2017, Elysium filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming ChromaDex, Inc. as defendant (the “SDNY Complaint”). Elysium alleges in the SDNY Complaint that ChromaDex, Inc. made false and misleading statements in a citizen petition to the Food and Drug Administration it filed on or about August 18, 2017. Among other allegations, Elysium avers that the citizen petition was filed with intent to injure Elysium’s position in the marketplace, that it falsely described Elysium’s product as dangerous, and that it misleadingly omitted material facts which made Elysium’s product appear dangerous, while casting ChromaDex, Inc.’s own products as safe. The SDNY Complaint asserts four claims for relief: (i) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1); (ii) trade libel; (iii) deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349; and (iv) tortious interference with business relations. ChromaDex, Inc. disputes the claims in the SDNY Complaint and intends to defend against them vigorously. On October 19, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the SDNY Complaint. In its motion, ChromaDex, Inc. argued that the SDNY Complaint should be dismissed because its statements in the citizen petition are immunized from all of Elysium’s claims under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, the litigation privilege, and New York’s Anti-SLAPP statute, and because the SDNY Complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Elysium filed its opposition papers on November 2, 2017. ChromaDex, Inc.’s reply, if any, is due on November 9, 2017. On October 26, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Elysium as defendant (the “ChromaDex SDNY Complaint”). ChromaDex alleges in the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint that Elysium Health Inc. made material false and misleading statements to consumers in the promotion, marketing, and sale of its health supplement product, Basis, by deceiving consumers into erroneously believing: (1) the product is “safe” and “pure” when its current Basis product has not been sufficiently tested to support those claims; (2) the product has been approved or otherwise endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration; and (3) the product has been approved or endorsed by prominent scientists and prestigious academic institutions, among other allegations. The ChromaDex SDNY Complaint asserts five claims for relief: (i) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (ii) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1225(a); (iii) deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349; (iv) deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 350; and (v) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.. Elysium has indicated that it intends on moving to dismiss the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint. On November 3, 2017, the Court consolidated the SDNY Complaint and the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint actions, and stayed discovery in both actions pending a Court ordered mediation. Briefing on the motion to dismiss the SDNY Complaint and the expected motion to dismiss the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint will continue in the interim. As of September 30, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. did not accrue a potential loss for the Counterclaim or the SDNY Complaint because ChromaDex, Inc. believes that the allegations are without merit and thus it is not probable that a liability had been incurred, and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. From time to time we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We believe that there is no other litigation pending that is likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. *Lease* On July 6, 2017, the Company entered into a lease for an office space located in Los Angeles, California through September 2021. Pursuant to the lease, the Company will make monthly lease payments ranging from approximately $11,000 to $21,000, as the payments escalate during the term of the lease. *Employment agreement with Robert Fried* On March 12, 2017, the Company entered into an Employment Agreement (the "Fried Agreement") with Robert Fried. Mr. Fried is entitled to receive certain severance payments per the terms of the Fried Agreement. The key terms of the Fried Agreement, including the severance terms are as follows: Mr. Fried is entitled to: (i) an annual base salary of $300,000; (ii) an annual cash bonus equal to (a) 1% of net direct-to-consumer sales of products with nicotinamide riboside as a lead ingredient by the Company plus (b) 2% of direct to consumer net sales of products with nicotinamide riboside as a lead ingredient for the portion of such sales that exceeded prior year sales plus (c) 1% of the gross profit derived from nicotinamide riboside ingredient sales to dietary supplement producers; (iii) an option to purchase up to 500,000 shares of Common Stock under the 2007 plan, subject to monthly vesting over a three-year period; and (iv) 166,667 shares of restricted Common Stock, subject to annual vesting over a three-year period. Subject to Mr. Fried’s continuous service through such date, Mr. Fried is also eligible to receive (i) on March 12, 2018, 166,667 shares of restricted Common Stock, subject to annual vesting over a two-year period, (ii) on March 12, 2019, 166,666 shares of restricted Common Stock that vest in full on the one year anniversary of the grant date and (iii) up to 500,000 shares of fully-vested restricted Common Stock that will be granted upon the achievement of certain performance goals. Any unvested options or shares of restricted stock will vest in full upon (a) a change in control of the Company, (b) Mr. Fried’s death, (c) Mr. Fried’s disability, (d) termination by the Company of Mr. Fried’s employment without cause or (e) Mr. Fried’s resignation for good reason, subject in each case to Mr. Fried’s continuous service as an employee or consultant of the Company or any of its subsidiaries though such event. The severance terms of the Fried Agreement provide that if (i) Mr. Fried’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause, for death or disability, or Mr. Fried resigns for good reason, or (ii) (a) a change in control of the Company occurs and (b) within one month prior to the date of such change in control or twelve months after the date of such change in control R. Fried’s employment is terminated by the Company other than for cause, then, subject to executing a release, Mr. Fried will receive (w) continuation of his base salary for 12 months, (x) health care continuation coverage payments premiums for 12 months, (y) a prorated annual cash bonus earned for the fiscal year in which such termination or resignation occurs, and (z) an extended exercise period for his options. *Employment agreement with Kevin Farr* Subsequent to the period ended September 30, 2017, the Company entered into an agreement with Thomas C. Varvaro whereby Mr. Varvaro will no longer serve as the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer. The Company expects that Mr. Varvaro will transition from the Company over the coming months to pursue other opportunities. During this transition Mr. Varvaro will serve as the Company’s Senior Vice President, Finance. Subsequent to the period ended September 30, 2017, the Company entered into an Employee Agreement (the Farr Agreement) with Kevin M. Farr who was appointed by the Board to serve as Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, principal accounting officer and principal financial officer, to replace the vacancies created by Mr. Varvaro's transition. Mr. Farr is entitled to receive certain severance payments per the terms of the Farr Agreement. The key terms of the Farr Agreement, including the severance terms are as follows: Mr. Farr is entitled to: (i) an annual base salary of $300,000 and (ii) a discretionary annual bonus based on the achievement of certain performance goals to be determined by the Board. Pursuant to the Farr Agreement, Mr. Farr also received an option to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of ChromaDex common stock under the ChromaDex 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, subject to monthly vesting over a three-year period, with an exercise price equal to $4.24 per share. The options will fully vest if the Company's stock price equals or exceeds $10 per share for over the previous 20 trading days. If Mr. Farr’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or Mr. Farr resigns for good reason, then, subject to executing a release, Mr. Farr will receive (i) continuation of his base salary for 12 months, (ii) COBRA premiums for 12 months, (iii) a prorated annual cash bonus, based on the good faith determination of the Board of the actual results and period of employment during the year of such termination, (iv) accelerated vesting of time-based equity that would have otherwise become vested by the one year anniversary of such termination date and (v) an extended exercise period for his options.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal proceedings

On December 29, 2016, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming Elysium Health, Inc. (together with Elysium Health, LLC, “Elysium”) as defendant. Among other allegations, ChromaDex, Inc. alleged in the Complaint that (i) Elysium breached the Supply Agreement, dated June 26, 2014, by and between ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium (the “pTeroPure® Supply Agreement”), by failing to make payments to ChromaDex, Inc. for purchases of pTeroPure® pursuant to the pTeroPure® Supply Agreement, (ii) Elysium breached the Supply Agreement, dated February 3, 2014, by and between ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium, as amended (the “NIAGEN® Supply Agreement”), by failing to make payments to ChromaDex, Inc. for purchases of NIAGEN® pursuant to the NIAGEN® Supply Agreement, (iii) Elysium breached the Trademark License and Royalty Agreement, dated February 3, 2014, by and between ChromaDex, Inc. and Elysium (the “License Agreement”), by failing to make payments to ChromaDex, Inc. for royalties due pursuant to the License Agreement and (iv) certain officers of Elysium made false promises and representations to induce ChromaDex, Inc. into providing large supplies of pTeroPure® and NIAGEN® to Elysium pursuant to the pTeroPure® Supply Agreement and NIAGEN® Supply Agreement. ChromaDex, Inc. is seeking punitive damages, money damages and interest.

On January 25, 2017, Elysium filed an answer and counterclaims (the “Counterclaim”) in response to the Complaint. Among other allegations, Elysium alleges in the Counterclaim that (i) ChromaDex, Inc. breached the NIAGEN® Supply Agreement by not issuing certain refunds or credits to Elysium and for violating certain confidential information provisions, (ii) ChromaDex, Inc. breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to the NIAGEN® Supply Agreement, (iii) ChromaDex, Inc. breached certain confidential provisions of the pTeroPure® Supply Agreement, (iv) ChromaDex, Inc. fraudulently induced Elysium into entering into the License Agreement (the “Fraud Claim”), (v) ChromaDex, Inc.’s conduct constitutes misuse of its patent rights (the “Patent Claim”) and (vi) ChromaDex, Inc. has engaged in unlawful or unfair competition under California state law (the “Unfair Competition Claim”). Elysium is seeking damages for ChromaDex, Inc.’s alleged breaches of the NIAGEN® Supply Agreement and pTeroPure® Supply Agreement, and compensatory damages, punitive damages and/or rescission of the License Agreement and restitution of any royalty payments conveyed by Elysium pursuant to the License Agreement, and a declaratory judgement that ChromaDex, Inc. has engaged in patent misuse.

On February 15, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, ChromaDex, Inc. re-alleges the claims in the Complaint, and also alleges that Elysium willfully and maliciously misappropriated ChromaDex, Inc.’s trade secrets. On February 15, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. also filed a motion to dismiss the Fraud Claim, the Patent Claim and the Unfair Competition Claim. On March 1, 2017, Elysium filed a motion to dismiss ChromaDex, Inc.'s fraud and trade secret misappropriation causes of action. On March 6, 2017, Elysium filed a first amended counterclaim. On March 20, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. moved to dismiss Elysium's amended fraud, patent misuse and the Unfair Competition Claim. On May 10, 2017, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, denying ChromaDex, Inc.’s motion as to Elysium’s fraud and patent misuse claims and granting ChromaDex, Inc.’s motion with prejudice as to Elysium’s Unfair Competition Claim. With respect to Elysium’s motion, the court granted the motion with prejudice as to ChromaDex, Inc.’s fraud claim and granted with leave to amend the motion as to ChromaDex, Inc.’s trade secret misappropriation claims. On May 24, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. answered the first amended counterclaim and asserted several affirmative defenses. Also on May 24, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a second amended complaint, amending the trade secret misappropriation claims and addressing Elysium’s patent misuse counterclaim. On June 7, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a third amended complaint dismissing the trade secret misappropriation claims and asserting two breach of contract claims for Elysium’s failure to pay for the product delivered. On June 16, 2017, Elysium answered the third amended complaint. On August 14, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. moved for judgment on the pleadings as to Elysium’s declaratory judgment of patent misuse counterclaim. On September 26, 2017, the court denied ChromaDex’s motion without prejudice and directed Elysium to file an amended counterclaim if it intended to maintain its declaratory judgment counterclaim. On October 11, 2017, Elysium filed a second amended counterclaim, re-alleging the claims in the first amended counterclaim and adding a claim for unjust enrichment and restitution of the royalties Elysium paid to ChromaDex, Inc. pursuant to the License Agreement. On October 25, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment of patent misuse and unjust enrichment claims and/or strike allegations in the unjust enrichment claim contained in the second amended counterclaim. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

On July 17, 2017, Elysium filed petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,197,807 and 8,383,086, patents to which ChromaDex, Inc. is the exclusive licensee.

On September 27, 2017, Elysium filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming ChromaDex, Inc. as defendant (the “SDNY Complaint”). Elysium alleges in the SDNY Complaint that ChromaDex, Inc. made false and misleading statements in a citizen petition to the Food and Drug Administration it filed on or about August 18, 2017. Among other allegations, Elysium avers that the citizen petition was filed with intent to injure Elysium’s position in the marketplace, that it falsely described Elysium’s product as dangerous, and that it misleadingly omitted material facts which made Elysium’s product appear dangerous, while casting ChromaDex, Inc.’s own products as safe. The SDNY Complaint asserts four claims for relief: (i) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1); (ii) trade libel; (iii) deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349; and (iv) tortious interference with business relations. ChromaDex, Inc. disputes the claims in the SDNY Complaint and intends to defend against them vigorously. On October 19, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the SDNY Complaint. In its motion, ChromaDex, Inc. argued that the SDNY Complaint should be dismissed because its statements in the citizen petition are immunized from all of Elysium’s claims under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, the litigation privilege, and New York’s Anti-SLAPP statute, and because the SDNY Complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Elysium filed its opposition papers on November 2, 2017. ChromaDex, Inc.’s reply, if any, is due on November 9, 2017.

On October 26, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Elysium as defendant (the “ChromaDex SDNY Complaint”). ChromaDex alleges in the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint that Elysium Health Inc. made material false and misleading statements to consumers in the promotion, marketing, and sale of its health supplement product, Basis, by deceiving consumers into erroneously believing: (1) the product is “safe” and “pure” when its current Basis product has not been sufficiently tested to support those claims; (2) the product has been approved or otherwise endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration; and (3) the product has been approved or endorsed by prominent scientists and prestigious academic institutions, among other allegations. The ChromaDex SDNY Complaint asserts five claims for relief: (i) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (ii) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1225(a); (iii) deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349; (iv) deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 350; and (v) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.. Elysium has indicated that it intends on moving to dismiss the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint. On November 3, 2017, the Court consolidated the SDNY Complaint and the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint actions, and stayed discovery in both actions pending a Court ordered mediation. Briefing on the motion to dismiss the SDNY Complaint and the expected motion to dismiss the ChromaDex SDNY Complaint will continue in the interim.

As of September 30, 2017, ChromaDex, Inc. did not accrue a potential loss for the Counterclaim or the SDNY Complaint because ChromaDex, Inc. believes that the allegations are without merit and thus it is not probable that a liability had been incurred, and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

From time to time we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We believe that there is no other litigation pending that is likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Lease

On July 6, 2017, the Company entered into a lease for an office space located in Los Angeles, California through September 2021. Pursuant to the lease, the Company will make monthly lease payments ranging from approximately $11,000 to $21,000, as the payments escalate during the term of the lease.

Employment agreement with Robert Fried

On March 12, 2017, the Company entered into an Employment Agreement (the "Fried Agreement") with Robert Fried. Mr. Fried is entitled to receive certain severance payments per the terms of the Fried Agreement. The key terms of the Fried Agreement, including the severance terms are as follows:

Mr. Fried is entitled to: (i) an annual base salary of $300,000; (ii) an annual cash bonus equal to (a) 1% of net direct-to-consumer sales of products with nicotinamide riboside as a lead ingredient by the Company plus (b) 2% of direct to consumer net sales of products with nicotinamide riboside as a lead ingredient for the portion of such sales that exceeded prior year sales plus (c) 1% of the gross profit derived from nicotinamide riboside ingredient sales to dietary supplement producers; (iii) an option to purchase up to 500,000 shares of Common Stock under the 2007 plan, subject to monthly vesting over a three-year period; and (iv) 166,667 shares of restricted Common Stock, subject to annual vesting over a three-year period.

Subject to Mr. Fried’s continuous service through such date, Mr. Fried is also eligible to receive (i) on March 12, 2018, 166,667 shares of restricted Common Stock, subject to annual vesting over a two-year period, (ii) on March 12, 2019, 166,666 shares of restricted Common Stock that vest in full on the one year anniversary of the grant date and (iii) up to 500,000 shares of fully-vested restricted Common Stock that will be granted upon the achievement of certain performance goals. Any unvested options or shares of restricted stock will vest in full upon (a) a change in control of the Company, (b) Mr. Fried’s death, (c) Mr. Fried’s disability, (d) termination by the Company of Mr. Fried’s employment without cause or (e) Mr. Fried’s resignation for good reason, subject in each case to Mr. Fried’s continuous service as an employee or consultant of the Company or any of its subsidiaries though such event.

The severance terms of the Fried Agreement provide that if (i) Mr. Fried’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause, for death or disability, or Mr. Fried resigns for good reason, or (ii) (a) a change in control of the Company occurs and (b) within one month prior to the date of such change in control or twelve months after the date of such change in control R. Fried’s employment is terminated by the Company other than for cause, then, subject to executing a release, Mr. Fried will receive (w) continuation of his base salary for 12 months, (x) health care continuation coverage payments premiums for 12 months, (y) a prorated annual cash bonus earned for the fiscal year in which such termination or resignation occurs, and (z) an extended exercise period for his options.

Employment agreement with Kevin Farr

Subsequent to the period ended September 30, 2017, the Company entered into an agreement with Thomas C. Varvaro whereby Mr. Varvaro will no longer serve as the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer. The Company expects that Mr. Varvaro will transition from the Company over the coming months to pursue other opportunities. During this transition Mr. Varvaro will serve as the Company’s Senior Vice President, Finance. Subsequent to the period ended September 30, 2017, the Company entered into an Employee Agreement (the Farr Agreement) with Kevin M. Farr who was appointed by the Board to serve as Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, principal accounting officer and principal financial officer, to replace the vacancies created by Mr. Varvaro's transition. Mr. Farr is entitled to receive certain severance payments per the terms of the Farr Agreement. The key terms of the Farr Agreement, including the severance terms are as follows:

Mr. Farr is entitled to: (i) an annual base salary of $300,000 and (ii) a discretionary annual bonus based on the achievement of certain performance goals to be determined by the Board. Pursuant to the Farr Agreement, Mr. Farr also received an option to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of ChromaDex common stock under the ChromaDex 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, subject to monthly vesting over a three-year period, with an exercise price equal to $4.24 per share. The options will fully vest if the Company's stock price equals or exceeds $10 per share for over the previous 20 trading days.

If Mr. Farr’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or Mr. Farr resigns for good reason, then, subject to executing a release, Mr. Farr will receive (i) continuation of his base salary for 12 months, (ii) COBRA premiums for 12 months, (iii) a prorated annual cash bonus, based on the good faith determination of the Board of the actual results and period of employment during the year of such termination, (iv) accelerated vesting of time-based equity that would have otherwise become vested by the one year anniversary of such termination date and (v) an extended exercise period for his options.