COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2021 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On March 17, 2015, Michael Ruth filed a shareholder derivative suit in Nevada District Court alleging breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement (the “Ruth Complaint”). The claims are premised on the same events that were the subject of a purported class action filed in the Southern District of New York on April 23, 2014 (the “Sallustro Case”). On July 2, 2019, the court in the Sallustro Case entered a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The Company did not make any settlement payment, and at no time was there a finding of wrongdoing by the Company or any of its directors. Regarding the Ruth Complaint, the Company and Mr. Ruth previously agreed to stay the action pending the conclusion of discovery in the Sallustro Case. Now that the Sallustro Case has been dismissed, the stay has been lifted. Plaintiff’s counsel recently informed the Court that Mr. Ruth sold his shares of CVSI stock and thus he no longer has standing to pursue this claim. However, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s counsel to substitute CVSI shareholder Otilda Lamont as the named plaintiff. On September 20, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Ruth Complaint and the Court issued a ruling denying the motion to dismiss on November 24, 2020. A Third Amended Complaint was filed on December 11, 2020 substituting Otilda Lamont as plaintiff. The Company filed an answer to the Ruth Complaint on January 11, 2021, and discovery is ongoing. The Court issued a schedule whereby discovery ended on November 19, 2021. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action complaint in Nevada District Court (the "Smith Complaint") alleging certain misstatements in the Company's public filings that led to stock price fluctuations and financial harm. Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith Complaint and each of the other suits all arise out of a report published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018, suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose that the Company’s efforts to secure patent protection for CVSI-007 had been “finally rejected” by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). On November 15, 2018, the court consolidated the actions and appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, filed a “consolidated amended complaint”. On March 5, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the action. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and the parties commenced discovery in the action. Recently, the parties attended mediation and reached a preliminary settlement to resolve this matter for a total of $712,500. The Company anticipates that all settlement payments will be paid through insurance. On March 9, 2022, the Nevada District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and setting a hearing for final approval of the settlement for July 2022.
Arising out of the same facts and circumstances in the Smith Complaint, on June 11, 2020, Phillip Berry filed a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging breaches of fiduciary duty against the Company and various defendants, and waste of corporate assets (the “Berry Complaint”). The Company accepted service of the Berry Complaint and filed a motion to dismiss. On May 14, 2021, the District Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss without prejudice but staying the action pending resolution of the Ina case. In addition to the Berry Complaint, five additional shareholder derivative suits have been filed which are premised on the same event as the Smith Complaint. This includes the most recent shareholder derivative action filed on April 13, 2021 by David Menna in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. A case management conference is currently set for May 6, 2022. With respect to the other four shareholder derivative cases, all four actions are also currently stayed and/or likely to have their stays continued. On May 19, 2020, the USPTO issued a patent pertaining to CVSI-007, which the Company believes negates and defeats any claims that the Company and the various defendants misled the market by not disclosing that the USPTO had finally rejected the patent. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations in each of these matters as the result of the issuance of a patent and the failure of the plaintiffs’ causes of action on various other grounds.
On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a putative class action complaint in the Central District of California, alleging the labeling on the Company’s products violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (the “Colette Complaint”). On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Colette Complaint. Instead of opposing our motion,
plaintiffs elected to file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020. On March 11, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended complaint. The portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promulgates rules that govern cannabidiol products (the “FDA Rules”). When such FDA Rules are promulgated, the plaintiffs will be allowed to ask the court to reopen the proceeding. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
On July 22, 2020, the Company filed a complaint in the San Diego Superior Court for declaratory relief to confirm the rescission of Mona Jr.’s employment agreement, which terminated certain severance and other post-termination compensation and benefits, as well as to recover amounts owed to the Company by Mona Jr. in connection with his purchase of a personal seat license ("PSL") for the Raiders Stadium and certain advance payments made on Mona Jr.’s behalf. The case was moved to an arbitration before the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the arbitration agreement in Mona Jr.'s employment agreement. Mona Jr. is seeking to obtain the terminated severance and other post-termination compensation and benefits under his employment agreement and reimbursement of legal fees associated with this action. On February 15, 2022, the arbitrator issued an interim ruling awarding the Company amounts owed by Mona Jr. related to his purchase of the PSL and other advance payments made on Mona Jr. behalf for a total of $0.3 million. The arbitrator also awarded Mona Jr. termination severance and other post-termination compensation and benefits under his employment agreement for a total of $0.5 million. The interim award asked the parties to brief the extent which prejudgment interest should be awarded. On March 1, 2022, the Company filed a motion to correct the arbitration award, which asks the arbitrator to reduce the interim award to Mona Jr. by approximately $0.1 million. The arbitrator has not ruled on the Company’s motion to correct or on the issue of prejudgment interest. No final arbitration award has been issued.
On November 5, 2021, Mona Jr. filed a complaint against the Company in Nevada state court seeking to recover federal and state taxes from the Company associated with the RSU release in 2019 - refer also to Note 12. Related Parties, for further information. On December 22, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and is pending before the court. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
In the normal course of business, the Company is a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which they may be obligated to indemnify the other party. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these types of agreements due to the conditional nature of our obligations, and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by us under these types of agreements have not had a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
|