NOTE 4  Commitments and Contingencies Legal From time to time, the Company is subject to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. In May 2017, NeuroOne received a letter from PMT Corporation ("PMT"), the former employer of Mark Christianson and Wade Fredrickson. PMT claimed that these officers had breached their restrictive covenant obligations with PMT by virtue of their work for NeuroOne and such officer's prior work during employment with the prior employer, that these officers had breached their confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations to PMT and federal and state law by misappropriating confidential and trade secret information, and that the Company is responsible for tortious interference with contracts. The letter, which purported to attach a noncompete agreement signed by Mr. Fredrickson, demanded that Mr. Fredrickson (who resigned from the Company in June 2017), Mr. Christianson and NeuroOne cease and desist all competitive activities, that Mr. Fredrickson step down from his position and that Mr. Christianson and NeuroOne provide the former employer access to NeuroOne's systems to demonstrate that it is not using trade secrets or proprietary information nor competing with the former employer. On March 29, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint filed by PMT adding the Company, NeuroOne and Mr. Christianson to its existing lawsuit against Mr. Fredrickson in the Fourth Judicial District Court of the State of Minnesota. The complaint purported to attach Mr. Fredrickson's noncompete agreement as Exhibit A. In the lawsuit, PMT claims that Mr. Fredrickson and Mr. Christianson breached their non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure obligations, breached their fiduciary duty obligations, were unjustly enriched, engaged in unfair competition, engaged in a civil conspiracy, tortiously interfered with PMT's contracts and prospective economic advantage, and breached a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Against Mr. Fredrickson, PMT also alleges that he intentionally or negligently spoliated evidence, made negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations, misappropriated trade secrets in violation of Minnesota law, and committed the tort of conversion and statutory civil theft. Against the Company and NeuroOne, PMT alleges that the Company and NeuroOne were unjustly enriched and engaged in unfair competition. PMT asked the Court to impose a constructive trust over the shares held by Mr. Fredrickson and Mr. Christianson and to award compensatory damages, equitable relief, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. On April 18, 2018, Mr. Christianson, the Company and NeuroOne, Inc. filed a motion for dismissal, which was heard by the Court on October 11, 2018. The motion for dismissal states that: the contract claims against Mr. Christianson fail because his agreement was not supported by consideration; the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts plaintiff's claims for unfair competition, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment; plaintiff fails to state a claim regarding alleged breach of the duties of loyalty and good faith/fair dealing; plaintiff cannot legally obtain a constructive trust; plaintiff has insufficiently pled its tortious interference claims; and Plaintiff has not stated a claim for unfair competition. On January 7, 2019, the judge granted the motion for dismissal with respect to PMT's claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and denied the motion for dismissal with respect to the other claims presented. In April 2019, PMT served the Company, NeuroOne, Inc and Christianson with a proposed Second Amended Complaint, which included new claims against the Company and NeuroOne, Inc for tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage and punitive damages against the Company, NeuroOne Inc. and Christianson. On June 28, 2019 the Company presented evidence indicating that PMT had participated in a fraud on the Court and sought an Order that PMT had waived the attorney client privilege. On July 16, 2019, the defendants served PMT with a joint notice of motion for sanctions seeking a variety of sanctions for litigation misconduct including, but not limited to, dismissal of the case and an award of attorneys' fees. The Company, NeuroOne Inc and Mr. Christianson further intend to move for summary judgment on all remaining claims asserted against them as well as for leave to assert counterclaims against PMT for abuse of process. On August 30, 2019, the Hennepin County District Court heard dispositive motions in this case. The district court judge indicated some claims would likely be tried to a jury and encouraged the parties to settle. On September 12, 2019 the district court heard NeuroOne's motion for sanctions. The district court held the sanctions hearing on December 17, 2019 and December 18, 2019 and indicated that a ruling would be made in approximately 90 days. NeuroOne and Mark Christianson (who has not worked for PMT since February 2012) intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously. The Court is expected to issue a ruling on the Company's request for summary judgment and sanctions against PMT by April 30, 2020. Facility Lease On October 7, 2019, the Company entered into a non-cancellable lease agreement (the "Lease") with Biynah Cleveland, LLC, BIP Cleveland, LLC, and Edenvale Investors (together, the "Landlord") pursuant to which the Company has agreed to lease office space located at 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Premises"). The Company took possession of the Premises on November 1, 2019, with the term of the Lease ending 65 months after such date, unless terminated earlier (the "Term"). The initial base rent for the Premises is $6,410 per month for the first 17 months, increasing to $7,076 per month by the end of the Term. In addition, as long as the Company is not in default under the Lease, the Company shall be entitled to an abatement of its base rent for the first 5 months. In addition, the Company will pay its pro rata share of the Landlord's annual operating expenses associated with the premises, calculated as set forth in the Lease of which the Company is entitled to an abatement of these operating expense for the first 3 months. Prior to the October 2019 Lease, the Company entered into a non-cancellable facility lease for its operations and headquarters for an eleven month term beginning on December 1, 2018. The monthly rent under that lease was $4,763. During the three months ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, rent expense associated with the facility leases amounted to $22,004 and $4,763, respectively. Supplemental cash flow information related to the operating lease was as follows: Three months ended December 31, 2019 Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liability: Operating cash flows from operating leases $  Right-of -use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations: Operating leases $ 335,119 Supplemental balance sheet information related to the operating lease was as follows: As of December 31, 2019 Right-of-use assets $ 325,248 Lease liability $ 337,689 Weighted average remaining lease term (years) 5.25 Weighted average discount rate 7.0 % Maturity of the lease liability was as follows: As of December 31, 2019 2020 (period from January 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020) $ 38,462 2021 77,884 2022 79,832 2023 81,827 2024 83,873 2025 42,454 Total lease payments 404,332 Less imputed interest (66,643 ) Total 337,689 Short-term portion (39,362 ) Long-term portion $ 298,327