Note 8.  Commitments and contingencies:

Employment commitments:

As of September 30, 2014, the Company had employment agreements with three officers providing aggregate annual minimum commitments totaling $873,000.  The agreements automatically renew at the end of each year unless terminated by either party and contain customary confidentiality and benefit provisions.

Contingencies: 

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (now Venaxis, Inc.) et al., Case No. CV10 7365 (“Wolfe Suit”). This federal securities purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stock of the Company during the period between February 22, 2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive. As previously disclosed, the complaint named as defendants certain officers and directors of the Company during such period and included allegations of violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act , all related to the Company's blood-based acute appendicitis test in development. On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel. On August 23, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint, alleging the same class period.

On October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the United States District Court for Colorado granted the Company's motion to dismiss, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants without prejudice and the court entered final judgment without prejudice on behalf of all defendants and against all plaintiffs in the Wolfe Suit. The order to dismiss the action found in favor of the Company and all of the individual defendants. On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the order granting the motion to dismiss and of the final judgment in the Wolfe Suit. Following oral argument, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals took the fully-briefed appeal under submission on September 26, 2013.

On October 17, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.

In the ordinary course of business and in the general industry in which the Company is engaged, it is not atypical to periodically receive a third party communication which may be in the form of a notice, threat, or ‘cease and desist' letter concerning certain activities.  For example, this can occur in the context of the Company's pursuit of intellectual property rights.  This can also occur in the context of operations such as the using, making, having made, selling, and offering to sell products and services, and in other contexts.  The Company makes rational assessment of each situation on a case-by-case basis as such may arise.  The Company periodically evaluates its options for trademark positions and considers a full spectrum of alternatives for trademark protection and product branding.

We are not a party to any other legal proceedings, the adverse outcome of which would, in our management's opinion, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.