COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2024
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On November 7, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit in the 44^th District Court of Dallas County, Texas (No. DC-19-17946) against Locke Lord, LLP and Roy Hardin in connection with their legal representation of the Company in its previous litigation against Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD"). The Company alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, committed malpractice, and were negligent in their representation of the Company. The Company seeks actual and exemplary damages, disgorgement, costs, and interest. On September 2, 2022, the Company filed a Second Amended Petition alleging legal malpractice and negligence. On February 20, 2024, the Defendants filed another Motion for Summary Judgment on the Company’s remaining claim of legal malpractice. A hearing on that Motion for Summary Judgment was held on April 18, 2024 and an order denying Defendants’ Motion was signed May 10, 2024. A new trial date has been set for June 2, 2025. On September 26, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of International Trade against the United States of America, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Trade Representative Katherine Tai, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, and U.S. Customs & Border Protection Acting Commissioner Troy Miller. Relief sought includes preliminary injunctions on recently enacted tariffs and, ultimately, a decision that the tariffs be set aside, as well as certain costs, fees, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 11, 2024 which was later restated on October 15, 2024. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 17, 2024. Post-hearing briefs were filed by the Company and the defendants on October 22, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the Court entered an opinion denying the Company’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the collection of tariffs, but ordered that the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of entries during the pendency of the litigation was granted.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2024

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On November 7, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit in the 44^th District Court of Dallas County, Texas (No. DC-19-17946) against Locke Lord, LLP and Roy Hardin in connection with their legal representation of the Company in its previous litigation against Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD"). The Company alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, committed malpractice, and were negligent in their representation of the Company. The Company seeks actual and exemplary damages, disgorgement, costs, and interest. On September 2, 2022, the Company filed a Second Amended Petition alleging legal malpractice and negligence. On February 20, 2024, the Defendants filed another Motion for Summary Judgment on the Company’s remaining claim of legal malpractice. A hearing on that Motion for Summary Judgment was held on April 18, 2024 and an order denying Defendants’ Motion was signed May 10, 2024. A new trial date has been set for June 2, 2025.

On September 26, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of International Trade against the United States of America, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Trade Representative Katherine Tai, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, and U.S. Customs & Border Protection Acting Commissioner Troy Miller. Relief sought includes preliminary injunctions on recently enacted tariffs and, ultimately, a decision that the tariffs be set aside, as well as certain costs, fees, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 11, 2024 which was later restated on October 15, 2024. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 17, 2024. Post-hearing briefs were filed by the Company and the defendants on October 22, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the Court entered an opinion denying the Company’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the collection of tariffs, but ordered that the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of entries during the pendency of the litigation was granted.