COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2022 | |
| 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 Company stock and thus he no longer has standing to pursue this claim. However, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s counsel to substitute Company 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. The parties agreed to a settlement in principle in January 2022 whereby the Company agreed to make certain corporate governance reforms in exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement on June 1, 2022. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement on February 7, 2023. A hearing seeking Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement will be held on May 15, 2023. If the Court grants Final Approval, the Company has 60 days to implement the corporate governance reforms. It is also anticipated that Plaintiff’s counsel will file a motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees.
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. The parties attended mediation and reached a preliminary settlement to resolve this matter for a total of $712,500. The settlement payment was paid through insurance. On March 9, 2022, the Nevada District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 22, 2022, the Nevada District Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. The case has now been dismissed.
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”). Defendants 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. 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. On July 28, 2022, the Company and the individual defendants involved in the case involving the Berry Complaint executed a global settlement agreement for the resolution of this action and the five other pending related shareholder derivative actions concerning the same underlying facts, pursuant to which neither the Company nor the individual defendants will pay any damages. The global settlement agreement contemplates the implementation by the Company of certain corporate reforms and payment of the plaintiffs' total attorneys' fees in the six related derivative actions, amounting to an aggregate of $275,000. The settlement payment was paid through insurance. On September 15, 2022, the Superior Court of the State of California issued an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement. On November 14, 2022, the Superior Court of the State of California issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. The case has now been dismissed.
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 has remained stayed pending an announcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promulgating rules that govern cannabidiol products (the “FDA Rules”). However, on January 26, 2023, the FDA announced that it does not intend to pursue rulemaking allowing the use of cannabidiol products in dietary supplements or conventional foods. As a result, on February 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a status report with the Court asking to have the stay lifted. The Company filed a written opposition. The Court will likely set a hearing on the matter. If the stay is lifted, 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 April 27, 2022, the arbitrator issued a final 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, including prejudgment interest. The arbitrator also awarded Mona Jr. termination severance and other post-termination compensation and benefits under his employment agreement for a total of $0.6 million, including prejudgment interest. The net amount due to Mona Jr. of $0.3 million was paid to Mona Jr., net of applicable payroll taxes, during the year ended December 31, 2022. Despite the Company's efforts to promptly pay the net amount awarded to Mona Jr., Mona Jr. filed a petition for confirmation of the arbitration award in the San Diego Superior Court case. On September 16, 2022, the court granted Mona Jr.'s petition to confirm the arbitration award. On November 18, 2022, the court entered judgment confirming the arbitration award. On December 8, 2022, Mona Jr. filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, which the Company opposed on February 9, 2023. On January 31, 2023, the Company filed a motion to tax costs that is scheduled to be heard on June 9, 2023.
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. On September 12, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss the case. On November 3, 2022, the court ordered the case into arbitration. On December 6, 2022, Mona Jr. filed the complaint against the Company and its officers with the American Arbitration Association. On January 31, 2023, the Company and management filed a case in the San Diego Superior Court for declaratory relief, seeking to enjoin the arbitration on the grounds that Mona Jr. is barred from proceeding with the arbitration under the doctrines of res judicata and judicial estoppel based on the positions that Mona Jr. took against the Company in the case described above. 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.
|