COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
3 Months Ended | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar. 31, 2020 | |||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action complaint (the “Complaint”) in the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, and seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On April 2, 2018, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel agreed to dismiss the case in its entirety, with prejudice. On July 2, 2019, the Court 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.
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 event as the Complaint. The Company and Mr. Ruth previously agreed to stay the action pending the conclusion of discovery in the Complaint. Now that the Complaint has been dismissed, the stay has been lifted. On September 20, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Ruth Complaint. Mr. Ruth filed a response to our motion, and we are currently awaiting a ruling from the court. 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 suit 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 have recently commenced discovery in the action. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations. Four shareholder derivative suits have been filed which are premised on the same event as the Smith Complaint. Three of these derivative suits are currently stayed with a responsive pleading due in the fourth such suit on July 12, 2020. Additionally, on April 7, 2020, the USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance with respect to the patent application pertaining to CVSI-007. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette filed a purported 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 motion has been fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision from 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.
|