12 . Commitments and Contingencies In the case captioned Medlogic, LLC and Malena F. Badon v . Peachstate Health M anagement, LLC, et al. , now pending in the 15 th Judicial District Court, Lafayette Parish, State of Louisiana, Docket No.: 2015 - 0151 I, the Company is the defendant in a case where the Plaintiffs, as independent contractors, allege they are owed certain commissions that they purportedly earned while marketing the Companys products and services. The Company believes the contractors were overpaid and has asserted a counterclaim for reimbursement of such overpayments. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claim and pursue its counterclaim. The parties have completed initial discovery and the matter remains pending. The Company believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on its financial statements. Prior to the completion of the merger, AT&amp;T provided various communication services and equipment to the Company, including facsimile lines. AT&amp;T has claimed that the Company owes approximately $500,000 to it for such services. The Company continues to negotiate with AT&amp;T to seek a compromise of such amount. To the Companys knowledge, no proceedings have been commenced regarding this matter, and the Company has accrued the full amount of its potential liabilities on its financial statements as of the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2018. Regarding the termination of the Companys relationship with certain executives, including the former Chief Executive Officer of Authentidate Holding Corp., OConnell Benjamin, the Company has been reviewing its severance obligations and the vesting of post-termination provisions. The Company believes it has accrued all related severance costs as of September 30, 2018 related to past terminations. Mr. Benjamin commenced an arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on or about June 22, 2016 requesting severance compensation of $341,620 and other benefits, including the vesting of certain stock option awards, pursuant to an employment agreement. The parties opted to pursue mediation in their attempt to resolve the matter, and a mediation session was held on October 30, 2017, but no resolution was reached. The Company believes it has valid defenses to Mr. Benjamins claims and intends to defend this matter accordingly as the arbitration process ensues. On Mar 3, 2017, the Company received notice from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) informing the Company that the OCR is conducting a review of the Companys compliance with applicable Federal Standards related to Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA), and its privacy, security and data breach rules (HIPAA Rules). The OCR compliance review covers both the Companys telehealth business and its clinical laboratory operations. The OCR reviewed the Companys premises and conducted interviews on Mary 23, 2017 and the Company continues to work on a resolution with the OCR. The OCR may, among other things, require a correct action, issue penalties, or reach a monetary settlement. The Company does not expect a material adverse determination on consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. The Company was the defendant in an action captioned Cogmedix, Inc. v. Authentidate Holding Corp. in the Superior Court of Worcester County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Case No.: 1685CV013188. Suit was filed on September 6, 2016, based upon a purchase order dated December 6, 2013, alleging the principal amount of $227,061, and accumulating interest and attorney fees. On February 15, 2018, judgment in the amount of $320,638 was awarded. The parties entered into a Forbearance Agreement on October 17, 2018, and plaintiff agreed to the Company's tender of 9 monthly installments totaling $149,996 payable through June 2019. The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and certain yet identified persons are defendants in a case captioned Carlotta Miraflor v. Peachstate Health Management, LLC d/b/a Aeon Global Health, et al. , filed on October 4, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 5:17 -CV- 02046 -DSF-SP. Service of the Summons and Compliant was made on January 3, 2018 and an Answer denying liability was timely filed with the Court Clerk. The plaintiff is a principal of a corporate independent contractor which planned to provide marketing services to the Company pursuant to a services agreement. The lawsuit was preceded by a Dismissal and Notice of Rights by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in July 2017, on the basis that the Plaintiff was determined to be a principal of a corporate independent contractor. Notwithstanding this ruling the Plaintiff initiated suit alleging wrongful termination, retaliation, harassment, and other claims. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for Plaintiffs alleged loss of earning, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs. The Company believes it has strong defenses to Plaintiffs allegations and intends to vigorously defend the claim. Management is unable to determine at this time whether this claim will have a material impact on the Companys financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow. The Company is the defendant in the case captioned Healthy Practice Solutions, LLC v. Peachstate Health Management, LLC, now pending in State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Civil Action File No.: 18 Ev 000042, where Plaintiff alleges it is owed certain commissions earned while marketing the Companys products and services. The parties are negotiating the cases resolution, and the Company believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on its financial statements, On September 15, 2015, the Company executed an amendment to the lease for its replacement offices in New Jersey. The term of the lease was for six years with annual rentals ranging from approximately $135,000 in the first year to $148,000 in the final year. The lease provided the Company with opportunities for its early termination by the tender of a pre-negotiated amount on the 18 th , 27 th , and 36 th month anniversary dates of the amendment. As part of the lease terms, the Company provided a letter of credit in the approximate amount of $121,000 as security for its lease payments. In July 2017, the Company vacated the premises, and the landlord took possession of both the premises and the aforementioned letter of credit monies in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. The Company is evaluating its possible lease obligations and considering its alternatives, and, although not guaranteed, expects to be successful. The Company is also subject to claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Our management considers that any liability from any reasonably foreseeable disposition of such claims and litigation, individually or in the aggregate, would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company has entered into various agreements by which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party with respect to certain matters. Generally, these indemnification provisions are included in contracts arising in the normal course of business under which we customarily agree to hold the indemnified party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations related to such matters as intellectual property rights. Payments by us under such indemnification clauses are generally conditioned on the other party making a claim. Such claims are generally subject to challenge by us and to dispute resolution procedures specified in the contract. Further, our obligations under these arrangements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount and, in some instances, we may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by us. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these indemnification agreements due to the conditional nature of our obligations and the unique facts of each agreement. Historically, we have not made any payments under these agreements that have been material individually or in the aggregate. As of September 30, 2018, we are not aware of any obligations under such indemnification agreements that would require material payments.