Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies and Subsequent Events	Note 13. Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events Financial Condition and Liquidity As described in Note 6 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a Purchase Agreement with RCA and a Financing Agreement with Action Capital. The willingness of RCA to purchase our accounts receivable under the Purchase Agreement and of Action Capital to make advances under the Financing Agreement, and our ability to obtain additional financing, may be limited due to various factors, including the eligibility of our receivables, the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by RCA, Action Capital, or other potential sources of financing. If we are unable to maintain the new financing arrangements, we would need to obtain additional credit to fund our future operations. If credit is available in that event, lenders may impose more restrictive terms and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to maintain, extend, renew or replace our new sources of financing with a comparable arrangement or arrangements that provide similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results. While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact our availability under our credit arrangements. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize cash resources without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our cash resources without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on our cash resources, our financing arrangements, and therefore our liquidity. Additionally, as a result of operations for 2014 and 2015, and the continued impact of contract delays as well as other government budgetary funding issues, management determined the need to raise additional working capital. Accordingly, in December 2014, we sold 10% of the membership interests in Telos ID to the Telos ID Class B member for $5 million, and, in March 2015, we issued the Porter Notes. As discussed in detail below in Subsequent Events, in January 2017, we borrowed $11 million under a credit agreement with Enlightenment Capital Solutions Fund II, L.P. to raise additional working capital and retire certain long-term obligations. Management currently believes that the Company's existing borrowing capacity under the Purchase Agreement and the Financing Agreement discussed above as well as the proceeds of the January 2017 financing, are sufficient to fund our capital and liquidity needs for the next 12 months. Management may determine that, in order to reduce capital and liquidity requirements, planned spending on capital projects and indirect expense growth may be curtailed, subject to growth in operating results. Additionally, management may seek to put in place a credit facility with a commercial bank, although no assurance can be given that such a facility could be put in place under terms acceptable to the Company. Should management determine that additional capital is required, management would likely look first to the sources of funding discussed above to meet any requirements, although no assurances can be given that these investors would be able to invest or that the Company and the investors would agree upon terms for such investments. Our working capital was $(8.6) million and $1.1 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that our financing arrangements with RCA and Action Capital, collectively, as well as the proceeds of the January 2017 financing discussed further in Subsequent Events below, are sufficient to maintain the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs for the next 12 months. Legal Proceedings Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. As previously reported, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. ("Costa Brava"), a holder of Public Preferred Stock, instituted litigation against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Circuit Court"). A second holder of the Company's Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. ("Wynnefield"), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R. C. Porter, a holder of the Company's Common Stock and Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock. In the litigation, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company and its officers and directors engaged in tactics to avoid paying dividends on the Public Preferred Stock, that the Company made improper bonus payments or awards to officers and directors, that certain former and present officers and directors breached legal duties or the standard of care that they owed the Company, that the Company improperly paid consulting fees to and engaged in loan transactions with Mr. Porter, that the Company failed to improve on the Company's purported insolvency, that the Company failed to redeem the Public Preferred Stock as alledgedly required by the Company's charter, and shareholder oppression against Mr. Porter. On December 22, 2005, the Company's Board of Directors established a special litigation committee ("Special Litigation Committee"), composed of certain independent directors, to review and evaluate the matters raised in the litigation. On July 20, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee, in its final report, concluded that the available evidence did not support Plaintiffs' derivative claims and that it was not in the best interests of the Company to pursue such claims in the litigation. On August 24, 2007, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' derivative claims based upon the report and to dismiss all remaining claims for failure to state a claim. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court dismissed all derivative claims based upon the recommendation of the Special Litigation Committee on January 7, 2008. On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint that included both new counts and previously dismissed counts. The Company moved to dismiss or strike the Third Amended Complaint and, on April 15, 2008, the Circuit Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice all counts in the Third Amended Complaint that were not previously disposed of by motion or stipulation. On December 2, 2008, the Company filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of its counterclaim against Plaintiffs (for their interference with the Company's relationship with Wells Fargo) without prejudice. The Circuit Court granted that motion, over Plaintiffs' opposition, on January 23, 2009. Following Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their derivative claims and shareholder oppression claim, on September 7, 2012, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ruled that the Circuit Court applied an incorrect standard of review to evaluate the conclusions of the Special Litigation Committee. The Court of Special Appeals held that the Circuit Court's dismissal of a shareholder oppression claim (asserted against Mr. Porter) raised an issue of first impression under Maryland law and required further briefing in the Circuit Court. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the decision of the Circuit Court that had been appealed and remanded the case for further consideration and proceedings. On October 24, 2012, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which was denied on January 22, 2013. On remand, the Circuit Court held a status and scheduling conference on July 26, 2013, as a result of which the Circuit Court issued a memorandum to counsel setting a briefing schedule to address the motion filed by the Company and other defendants to dismiss or otherwise dispose of the derivative claims as a result of the findings of the Special Litigation Committee in its final report of July 20, 2007. On November 1, 2013, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the derivative claims under the standard of review dictated by the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion on December 23, 2013, and Defendants filed their Reply on January 23, 2014. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 24, 2014. No decision has been rendered on the Company's motion to dismiss or otherwise dispose of the derivative claims, and the matter remains pending. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a request for an entry of an order for default as to Mr. Porter, which was denied by the Circuit Court on November 8, 2013. Mr. Porter ultimately filed a motion to dismiss the claim against him on May 13, 2014, raising multiple grounds. No decision has been rendered on Mr. Porter's motion to dismiss, and the matter remains pending. As of December 31, 2016, Costa Brava and Wynnefield own 12.7% and 17.3%, respectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. No material developments occurred in this litigation in 2016. At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs' success in relation to any of their assertions in the litigation. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case, the Company and its present and former officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs' allegations and continue to vigorously defend the matter and oppose all relief sought by Plaintiffs. Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation As previously reported, since August 2, 2007, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava Partnership III L.P. ("Costa Brava") and Class D Directors of the Company ("Class D Directors"), have been involved in litigation against the Company in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Circuit Court"). The Class D Directors initially alleged that certain documents and records had not been promptly provided to them and were necessary to fulfill their duties as directors of the Company. Subsequently, the Class D Directors further alleged that the Company had failed to follow certain provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes and, additionally, that Mr. Wood's service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company's Bylaws. By way of preliminary injunctions entered on August 28, 2007 and September 24, 2007, the Circuit Court ordered that the Class D Directors are entitled to documents in response to reasonable requests for information pertinent and necessary to perform their duties as members of the Board but, in light of the Costa Brava shareholder litigation, the Company is entitled to designated certain documents as "confidential" or "highly confidential" and to withhold certain documents from the Class D Directors based upon the attorney work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. Pursuant to the preliminary injunctions, the Class D Directors are also entitled to receive written responses to requests for Board of Directors or Board committee minutes within seven days of any such requests and copies of such minutes within fifteen days of any such requests, as well as written responses to all other requests for information and/or documents related to their duties as directors within seven days of such requests, and all Board of Directors appropriate information and/or documents within thirty days of any such requests. On April 23, 2008, the Company filed a counterclaim against the Class D Directors for money damages and preliminary and injunctive relief based upon the Class D Directors' interference with, and improper influence of, the Company's independent auditors regarding, among other things, a specific accounting treatment. On June 27, 2008, the Circuit Court granted the Company's motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Class D Directors from contacting the Company's auditors until the completion of the Company's Form 10-K for the preceding year. This preliminary injunction expired by its own terms and an appeal from that ordered was held to be moot by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. On April 12, 2010, the Class D Directors filed a motion for the advancement of legal fees and expenses incurred in defense of the Company's counterclaim. On November 3, 2011, the Circuit Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion, as well as the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and request for attorneys' fees. On May 21, 2012, the Circuit Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the same. Trial on both the Class D Directors' books and records claims and the Company's counterclaims realated to the auditor interference commenced on July 5, 2013, and continued on several days in July 2013. The evidentiary portion of the trial concluded on August 1, 2013, and post-trial briefing concluded on September 16, 2013. The court decision on this matter is still pending and no material developments occurred in this litigation during 2016. At this stage of the litigation it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Class D Directors' success in any of their assertions and claims, or whether such success would entitle them to monetary relief. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, the Company and its officers and directors strenuously deny the Class D Directors' claims, and will vigorously defend the matter, and continue to oppose the relief sought. Other Litigation In addition, the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Subsequent Events On January 25, 2017, we entered into a Credit Agreement (the "Credit Agreement"), by and among the Company, as borrower, Xacta Corporation, ubIQuity.com, Inc., and Teloworks, Inc., as guarantors (together, the "Guarantors"), Enlightenment Capital Solutions Fund II, L.P., as agent (the "Agent"), and the lenders party thereto (the "Lenders"). The Credit Agreement provides for an $11,000,000 senior term loan (the "Loan") with a maturity date of January 25, 2022, subject to acceleration in the event of customary events of default. All borrowings under the Credit Agreement will accrue interest at the Accrual Rate of 13.0% per annum. If, at the request of the Company, the Agent executes an intercreditor agreement with another senior lender under which the Agent and the Lenders subordinate their liens on the Company's and the Guarantor's collateral (an "Alternative Interest Rate Event"), the interest rate will increase to 14.5% per annum. After the occurrence and during the continuance of any event of default, the interest rate will increase 2.0%. The Company is obligated to pay accrued interest in cash on a monthly basis at a rate of not less than 10.0% per annum or, during the continuance of an Alternate Interest Rate Event, 11.5% per annum. The Company may elect to pay the remaining interest in cash, by payment-in-kind (by addition to the principal amount of the Loan) or by combination of cash and payment-in-kind. Upon thirty days prior written notice, the Company may prepay any portion or the entire amount of the Loan. The amount of $1,112,222.22 was netted from the proceeds on the Loan as a prepayment of all interest due and payable at the Accrual Rate during the period from January 25, 2017 to October 31, 2017. A separate fee letter executed by the Company and the Agent, dated January 25, 2017, sets forth the fees payable to the Agent in connection with the Credit Agreement. The Credit Agreement contains representations, warranties, covenants, terms and conditions customary for transactions of this type. In connection with the Credit Agreement, the Agent has been granted, for the benefit of the Lenders, a security interest in and general lien upon various property of the Company and the Guarantors, subject to certain permitted liens and any intercreditor agreement. The occurrence of an event of default under the Credit Agreement could result in the Loan and other obligations becoming immediately due and payable and allow the Lenders to exercise all rights and remedies available to them under the Credit Agreement or as a secured party under the UCC, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to them. In connection with the Credit Agreement, on January 25, 2017, the Company issued warrants (each, a "Warrant") to Agent and certain of the Lenders representing in the aggregate the right to purchase in accordance with their terms 1,135,284.333 shares of the Class A Common Stock of the Company, no par value per share, which is equivalent to approximately 2.5% of the common equity interests of the Company on a fully diluted basis. The exercise price is $1.321 per share and each Warrant expires on January 25, 2027. The issuance of the Warrants was made pursuant to the exemptions from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provided by Section 4(a)(2) thereof. Each Warrant contains appropriate transfer restriction legends. Effective February 23, 2017, the Credit Agreement was amended to change the required timing of certain post-closing items, to allow for more time to complete the legal and administrative requirements around such items.

Note 13. Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events

Financial Condition and Liquidity

As described in Note 6 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a Purchase Agreement with RCA and a Financing Agreement with Action Capital. The willingness of RCA to purchase our accounts receivable under the Purchase Agreement and of Action Capital to make advances under the Financing Agreement, and our ability to obtain additional financing, may be limited due to various factors, including the eligibility of our receivables, the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by RCA, Action Capital, or other potential sources of financing. If we are unable to maintain the new financing arrangements, we would need to obtain additional credit to fund our future operations. If credit is available in that event, lenders may impose more restrictive terms and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to maintain, extend, renew or replace our new sources of financing with a comparable arrangement or arrangements that provide similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results.

While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact our availability under our credit arrangements. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize cash resources without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our cash resources without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on our cash resources, our financing arrangements, and therefore our liquidity.

Additionally, as a result of operations for 2014 and 2015, and the continued impact of contract delays as well as other government budgetary funding issues, management determined the need to raise additional working capital. Accordingly, in December 2014, we sold 10% of the membership interests in Telos ID to the Telos ID Class B member for $5 million, and, in March 2015, we issued the Porter Notes. As discussed in detail below in Subsequent Events, in January 2017, we borrowed $11 million under a credit agreement with Enlightenment Capital Solutions Fund II, L.P. to raise additional working capital and retire certain long-term obligations. Management currently believes that the Company's existing borrowing capacity under the Purchase Agreement and the Financing Agreement discussed above as well as the proceeds of the January 2017 financing, are sufficient to fund our capital and liquidity needs for the next 12 months.

Management may determine that, in order to reduce capital and liquidity requirements, planned spending on capital projects and indirect expense growth may be curtailed, subject to growth in operating results. Additionally, management may seek to put in place a credit facility with a commercial bank, although no assurance can be given that such a facility could be put in place under terms acceptable to the Company. Should management determine that additional capital is required, management would likely look first to the sources of funding discussed above to meet any requirements, although no assurances can be given that these investors would be able to invest or that the Company and the investors would agree upon terms for such investments.

Our working capital was $(8.6) million and $1.1 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that our financing arrangements with RCA and Action Capital, collectively, as well as the proceeds of the January 2017 financing discussed further in Subsequent Events below, are sufficient to maintain the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs for the next 12 months.

Legal Proceedings

Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P.

As previously reported, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. ("Costa Brava"), a holder of Public Preferred Stock, instituted litigation against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Circuit Court"). A second holder of the Company's Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. ("Wynnefield"), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R. C. Porter, a holder of the Company's Common Stock and Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock.

In the litigation, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company and its officers and directors engaged in tactics to avoid paying dividends on the Public Preferred Stock, that the Company made improper bonus payments or awards to officers and directors, that certain former and present officers and directors breached legal duties or the standard of care that they owed the Company, that the Company improperly paid consulting fees to and engaged in loan transactions with Mr. Porter, that the Company failed to improve on the Company's purported insolvency, that the Company failed to redeem the Public Preferred Stock as alledgedly required by the Company's charter, and shareholder oppression against Mr. Porter.

On December 22, 2005, the Company's Board of Directors established a special litigation committee ("Special Litigation Committee"), composed of certain independent directors, to review and evaluate the matters raised in the litigation. On July 20, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee, in its final report, concluded that the available evidence did not support Plaintiffs' derivative claims and that it was not in the best interests of the Company to pursue such claims in the litigation. On August 24, 2007, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' derivative claims based upon the report and to dismiss all remaining claims for failure to state a claim. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court dismissed all derivative claims based upon the recommendation of the Special Litigation Committee on January 7, 2008.

On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint that included both new counts and previously dismissed counts. The Company moved to dismiss or strike the Third Amended Complaint and, on April 15, 2008, the Circuit Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice all counts in the Third Amended Complaint that were not previously disposed of by motion or stipulation. On December 2, 2008, the Company filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of its counterclaim against Plaintiffs (for their interference with the Company's relationship with Wells Fargo) without prejudice. The Circuit Court granted that motion, over Plaintiffs' opposition, on January 23, 2009.

Following Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their derivative claims and shareholder oppression claim, on September 7, 2012, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ruled that the Circuit Court applied an incorrect standard of review to evaluate the conclusions of the Special Litigation Committee. The Court of Special Appeals held that the Circuit Court's dismissal of a shareholder oppression claim (asserted against Mr. Porter) raised an issue of first impression under Maryland law and required further briefing in the Circuit Court. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the decision of the Circuit Court that had been appealed and remanded the case for further consideration and proceedings.

On October 24, 2012, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which was denied on January 22, 2013.

On remand, the Circuit Court held a status and scheduling conference on July 26, 2013, as a result of which the Circuit Court issued a memorandum to counsel setting a briefing schedule to address the motion filed by the Company and other defendants to dismiss or otherwise dispose of the derivative claims as a result of the findings of the Special Litigation Committee in its final report of July 20, 2007. On November 1, 2013, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the derivative claims under the standard of review dictated by the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion on December 23, 2013, and Defendants filed their Reply on January 23, 2014. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 24, 2014. No decision has been rendered on the Company's motion to dismiss or otherwise dispose of the derivative claims, and the matter remains pending.

On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a request for an entry of an order for default as to Mr. Porter, which was denied by the Circuit Court on November 8, 2013. Mr. Porter ultimately filed a motion to dismiss the claim against him on May 13, 2014, raising multiple grounds. No decision has been rendered on Mr. Porter's motion to dismiss, and the matter remains pending.

As of December 31, 2016, Costa Brava and Wynnefield own 12.7% and 17.3%, respectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock.

No material developments occurred in this litigation in 2016.

At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs' success in relation to any of their assertions in the litigation. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case, the Company and its present and former officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs' allegations and continue to vigorously defend the matter and oppose all relief sought by Plaintiffs.

Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation

As previously reported, since August 2, 2007, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava Partnership III L.P. ("Costa Brava") and Class D Directors of the Company ("Class D Directors"), have been involved in litigation against the Company in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Circuit Court"). The Class D Directors initially alleged that certain documents and records had not been promptly provided to them and were necessary to fulfill their duties as directors of the Company. Subsequently, the Class D Directors further alleged that the Company had failed to follow certain provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes and, additionally, that Mr. Wood's service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company's Bylaws.

By way of preliminary injunctions entered on August 28, 2007 and September 24, 2007, the Circuit Court ordered that the Class D Directors are entitled to documents in response to reasonable requests for information pertinent and necessary to perform their duties as members of the Board but, in light of the Costa Brava shareholder litigation, the Company is entitled to designated certain documents as "confidential" or "highly confidential" and to withhold certain documents from the Class D Directors based upon the attorney work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. Pursuant to the preliminary injunctions, the Class D Directors are also entitled to receive written responses to requests for Board of Directors or Board committee minutes within seven days of any such requests and copies of such minutes within fifteen days of any such requests, as well as written responses to all other requests for information and/or documents related to their duties as directors within seven days of such requests, and all Board of Directors appropriate information and/or documents within thirty days of any such requests.

On April 23, 2008, the Company filed a counterclaim against the Class D Directors for money damages and preliminary and injunctive relief based upon the Class D Directors' interference with, and improper influence of, the Company's independent auditors regarding, among other things, a specific accounting treatment. On June 27, 2008, the Circuit Court granted the Company's motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Class D Directors from contacting the Company's auditors until the completion of the Company's Form 10-K for the preceding year. This preliminary injunction expired by its own terms and an appeal from that ordered was held to be moot by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

On April 12, 2010, the Class D Directors filed a motion for the advancement of legal fees and expenses incurred in defense of the Company's counterclaim. On November 3, 2011, the Circuit Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion, as well as the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and request for attorneys' fees. On May 21, 2012, the Circuit Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the same.

Trial on both the Class D Directors' books and records claims and the Company's counterclaims realated to the auditor interference commenced on July 5, 2013, and continued on several days in July 2013. The evidentiary portion of the trial concluded on August 1, 2013, and post-trial briefing concluded on September 16, 2013. The court decision on this matter is still pending and no material developments occurred in this litigation during 2016.

At this stage of the litigation it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Class D Directors' success in any of their assertions and claims, or whether such success would entitle them to monetary relief. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, the Company and its officers and directors strenuously deny the Class D Directors' claims, and will vigorously defend the matter, and continue to oppose the relief sought.

Other Litigation

In addition, the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Subsequent Events

On January 25, 2017, we entered into a Credit Agreement (the "Credit Agreement"), by and among the Company, as borrower, Xacta Corporation, ubIQuity.com, Inc., and Teloworks, Inc., as guarantors (together, the "Guarantors"), Enlightenment Capital Solutions Fund II, L.P., as agent (the "Agent"), and the lenders party thereto (the "Lenders"). The Credit Agreement provides for an $11,000,000 senior term loan (the "Loan") with a maturity date of January 25, 2022, subject to acceleration in the event of customary events of default.

All borrowings under the Credit Agreement will accrue interest at the Accrual Rate of 13.0% per annum. If, at the request of the Company, the Agent executes an intercreditor agreement with another senior lender under which the Agent and the Lenders subordinate their liens on the Company's and the Guarantor's collateral (an "Alternative Interest Rate Event"), the interest rate will increase to 14.5% per annum. After the occurrence and during the continuance of any event of default, the interest rate will increase 2.0%. The Company is obligated to pay accrued interest in cash on a monthly basis at a rate of not less than 10.0% per annum or, during the continuance of an Alternate Interest Rate Event, 11.5% per annum. The Company may elect to pay the remaining interest in cash, by payment-in-kind (by addition to the principal amount of the Loan) or by combination of cash and payment-in-kind. Upon thirty days prior written notice, the Company may prepay any portion or the entire amount of the Loan.

The amount of $1,112,222.22 was netted from the proceeds on the Loan as a prepayment of all interest due and payable at the Accrual Rate during the period from January 25, 2017 to October 31, 2017. A separate fee letter executed by the Company and the Agent, dated January 25, 2017, sets forth the fees payable to the Agent in connection with the Credit Agreement.

The Credit Agreement contains representations, warranties, covenants, terms and conditions customary for transactions of this type. In connection with the Credit Agreement, the Agent has been granted, for the benefit of the Lenders, a security interest in and general lien upon various property of the Company and the Guarantors, subject to certain permitted liens and any intercreditor agreement. The occurrence of an event of default under the Credit Agreement could result in the Loan and other obligations becoming immediately due and payable and allow the Lenders to exercise all rights and remedies available to them under the Credit Agreement or as a secured party under the UCC, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to them.

In connection with the Credit Agreement, on January 25, 2017, the Company issued warrants (each, a "Warrant") to Agent and certain of the Lenders representing in the aggregate the right to purchase in accordance with their terms 1,135,284.333 shares of the Class A Common Stock of the Company, no par value per share, which is equivalent to approximately 2.5% of the common equity interests of the Company on a fully diluted basis. The exercise price is $1.321 per share and each Warrant expires on January 25, 2027. The issuance of the Warrants was made pursuant to the exemptions from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provided by Section 4(a)(2) thereof. Each Warrant contains appropriate transfer restriction legends.

Effective February 23, 2017, the Credit Agreement was amended to change the required timing of certain post-closing items, to allow for more time to complete the legal and administrative requirements around such items.