Litigation | 6. Litigation Kleba Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On June 6, 2014, the Company, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Derivative Lawsuit Settlement”) in the shareholder derivative lawsuit filed by Glenn Kleba, derivatively on behalf of the Company, and later amended to include Don B. Dale as a plaintiff, in the Circuit Court for the State of Tennessee, Knox County (the “Court”), against H. Craig Dees, Ph.D., Timothy C. Scott, Ph.D., Eric A. Wachter, Ph.D., and Peter R. Culpepper (collectively, the “Executives”), Stuart Fuchs, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, together with the Executives, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”), which alleged (i) breach of fiduciary duties; (ii) waste of corporate assets; and (iii) unjust enrichment. Under the terms of the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement, among other things, the Executives each agreed (A) to re-pay to the Company $2.24 million of the cash bonuses they each received in 2010 and 2011, which amount equals 70% of such bonuses or an estimate of the after-tax net proceeds to each Executive; provided, however, that subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement, the Executives are entitled to a 2:1 credit such that total actual repayment may be $1.12 million each; (B) to reimburse the Company for 25% of the actual costs, net of recovery from any other source, incurred by the Company as a result of the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit; and (C) to grant to the Company a first priority security interest in 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock owned by each such Executive to serve as collateral for the amounts due to the Company under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement. Under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement, Messrs. Fuchs and Smith and Dr. McMasters have each agreed to pay the Company $25,000 in cash, subject to reduction by such amount that the Company’s insurance carrier pays to the Company on behalf of such defendant pursuant to such defendant’s directors and officers liability insurance policy. On July 24, 2014, the Court approved the terms of the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement and awarded $911,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with their role in the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. The payment to plaintiff’s counsel was made by the Company during October 2014 and was recorded as other current assets at December 31, 2014, as the Company is seeking reimbursement of the full amount from its insurance carrier. If the full amount is not received from insurance, the amount remaining will be reimbursed to the Company from the Individual Defendants. As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the net amount of the receivable of $455,500 is reported as non-current assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. On October 3, 2014, the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement was effective and an aggregate of 2,800,000 stock options for Dr. Dees, Dr. Scott and Mr. Culpepper were rescinded. A total of $1,816,667 had been repaid by the Executives as of September 30, 2017. The remaining cash settlement amounts will continue to be repaid to the Company with the final payment to be received by October 3, 2019. The remaining balance of the Executives’ repayment due the Company as of September 30, 2017 is $1,039,770, including a reserve for uncollectibility of $1,549,043 in connection with the resignation of Dr. Dees, the Company’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and termination of Mr. Culpepper, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, and former interim Chief Executive Officer following Dr. Dees’ resignation, with a present value discount remaining of $57,623. As a result of his resignation, Dr. Dees is no longer entitled to the 2:1 credit, such that his total repayment obligation of $2,040,000 (the total $2.24 million owed by Dr. Dees pursuant to the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement less the $200,000 that he repaid), plus Dr. Dees’ proportionate share of the litigation costs, is immediately due and payable. The Company sent Dr. Dees a notice of default in March 2016 for the total amount he owes the Company. On July 25, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville issued a Memorandum Opinion finding, among other findings, that the Company is entitled to receive total damages in the amount of $6,027,652, including $2,494,525 for Dr. Dees’ breach of the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement. See Dees Collection Lawsuit below. As a result of his termination “for cause,” Mr. Culpepper is no longer entitled to the 2:1 credit, such that his total repayment obligation of $2,051,083 (the total $2.24 million owed by Mr. Culpepper pursuant to the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement plus Mr. Culpepper’s proportionate share of the litigation cost of $227,750 less the $416,667 that he repaid) is immediately due and payable. The Company sent Mr. Culpepper a notice of default in January 2017 for the total amount he owes the Company. Mr. Culpepper disputes that he was terminated “for cause” and thus disputes that he owes the full $2,051,083 repayment amount under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement. See Culpepper Travel Expenses and Related Collection Efforts below. Dees Collection Lawsuit On May 5, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville (the “Court”) against Dr. Dees and his wife, Virginia Godfrey (together with Dr. Dees, the “Defendants”). The Company alleged that between 2013 and 2015, Dr. Dees received approximately $2.4 million in advanced or reimbursed travel and entertainment expenses from the Company and that Dr. Dees did not use these funds for legitimate travel and entertainment expenses as he requested and the Company intended. Instead, the Company alleged that Dr. Dees created false receipts and documentation for the expenses and applied the funds to personal use. The Company and Dr. Dees are parties to the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement that was negotiated to resolve certain claims asserted against Dr. Dees derivatively. Pursuant to the terms of the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement, Dr. Dees agreed to repay the Company compensation that was paid to him along with legal fees and other expenses incurred by the Company. As of the date of his resignation, Dr. Dees still owed the Company $2,267,750 under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement. Dr. Dees has failed to make such payment, and the Company has notified him that he is in default and demanded payment in full. The Company established a reserve of $2,267,750 as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, which amount represents the amount the Company believed Dr. Dees owed to the Company as of those dates. Therefore, the Company alleged counts of conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement, unjust enrichment and punitive damages in this lawsuit. The Company sought an order that the Defendants be prohibited from disposing of any property that may have been paid for with the misappropriated funds, the Defendants be disgorged of any funds shown to be fraudulently misappropriated and that the Company be awarded compensatory damages in an amount not less than $5 million. Furthermore, the Company sought for the damages to be joint and several as to the Defendants and that punitive damages be awarded against Dr. Dees in the Company’s favor. The Company also sought foreclosure of the Company’s first-priority security interest in the 1,000,000 shares of common stock granted by Dr. Dees to the Company as collateral pursuant to that certain Stock Pledge Agreement dated October 3, 2014, between Dr. Dees and the Company in order to secure Dr. Dees’ obligations under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement. The Court entered a default judgment against the Defendants on July 20, 2016. On March 15, 2017, the Court granted Ms. Godfrey’s motion to set aside the default judgment against her and set a deadline of March 30, 2017 for Ms. Godfrey to file an answer to the Company’s complaint. Ms. Godfrey filed her answer on March 28, 2017 demanding that the complaint against her be dismissed. The Court held a hearing on April 26, 2017 to determine damages with respect to the motion for default judgment against Dr. Dees. On July 25, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion finding that the Company is entitled to receive total damages in the amount of $6,027,652, comprising compensatory damages for misappropriation of travel and expense funds, compensatory damages for Dr. Dees’ breach of the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement, and punitive damages, plus costs. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be able to recover any or all of the damages awarded to the Company. The Court also entered a permanent injunction enjoining Dr. Dees from selling or dissipating assets until the judgment against him is satisfied. On September 1, 2017, the Company filed a motion with the Court to appoint a receiver to sell 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock held by Dr. Dees and pledged as security pursuant to the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement, and to remit the proceeds of this sale to the Company. Culpepper Travel Expenses and Related Collection Efforts On December 27, 2016, the Company’s Board of Directors unanimously voted to terminate Mr. Culpepper, effective immediately, from all positions he held with the Company and each of its subsidiaries, including interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, “for cause”, in accordance with the terms of the Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement entered into by Mr. Culpepper and the Company on April 28, 2014 (the “Culpepper Employment Agreement”) based on the results of the investigation conducted by a Special Committee of the Board of Directors regarding improper travel expense advancements and reimbursements to Mr. Culpepper. The Special Committee retained independent counsel and an advisory firm with forensic accounting expertise to assist the Special Committee in conducting the investigation. The Special Committee found that Mr. Culpepper received $294,255 in travel expense reimbursements and advances that were unsubstantiated. The Company seeks to recover from Mr. Culpepper the entire $294,255 in unsubstantiated travel expense reimbursements and advances, as well as all attorney’s fees and auditors’/experts’ fees incurred by the Company in connection with the examination of his travel expense reimbursements. Under the terms of the Culpepper Employment Agreement, Mr. Culpepper is owed no severance payments as a result of his termination “for cause” as that term is defined in the Culpepper Employment Agreement. Furthermore, Mr. Culpepper is no longer entitled to the 2:1 credit under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement such that the total $2,240,000 owed by Mr. Culpepper pursuant to the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement plus Mr. Culpepper’s proportionate share of the litigation cost in the amount of $227,750 less the amount that he repaid as of December 31, 2016 is immediately due and payable. The Company sent Mr. Culpepper a notice of default in January 2017 for the total amount he owes the Company and is in the process of resolving these claims pursuant to the alternative dispute resolution provision of the Culpepper Employment Agreement. The Company has established a reserve of $2,051,083 as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, which amount represents the amount the Company currently believes Mr. Culpepper owes to the Company, while the Company pursues collection of this amount. Mr. Culpepper disputes that he was terminated “for cause” under the Culpepper Employment Agreement. Pursuant to the alternative dispute resolution provisions of that agreement, the Company and Mr. Culpepper participated in a mediation of their dispute on June 28, 2017. Having reached no resolution during the mediation, the parties are proceeding to arbitration, under the commercial rules of the American Arbitration Association, which will include, among other claims, both Mr. Culpepper’s claim for severance against Provectus and Provectus’ claims against Mr. Culpepper for improper expense reimbursements and amounts Culpepper owes Provectus under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement. The Bible Harris Smith Lawsuit On November 17, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee against Bible Harris Smith PC (“BHS”) for professional negligence, common law negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from accounting services provided by BHS to the Company. The Company alleges that between 2013 and 2015, Dr. Dees received approximately $2.4 million in advanced or reimbursed travel and entertainment expenses from the Company and that Dr. Dees did not submit back-up documentation in support of substantially all of the advances he received purportedly for future travel and entertainment expenses. The Company further alleges that had BHS provided competent accounting and tax preparation services, it would have discovered Dr. Dees’ failure to submit back-up documentation supporting the advanced travel funds at the inception of Dr. Dees’ conduct, and prevented the misuse of these and future funds. The Company has made a claim for damages against BHS in an amount in excess of $3 million. The complaint against BHS has been filed and served, an answer has been received, and the parties are in the midst of discovery. The RSM Lawsuit On June 9, 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina against RSM USA LLP (“RSM”) for professional negligence, common law negligence, gross negligence, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty arising from accounting, internal auditing and consulting services provided by RSM to the Company. The Company alleges that between 2013 and 2015, Dr. Dees received approximately $2.4 million in advanced or reimbursed travel and entertainment expenses from the Company and that Dr. Dees did not submit back-up documentation in support of substantially all of the advances he received purportedly for future travel and entertainment expenses. The Company similarly alleges that Mr. Culpepper received $294,255 in travel expense reimbursements and advances that were unsubstantiated. The Company further alleges that had RSM provided competent accounting, internal audit and consulting services, it would have discovered Dr. Dees’ and Mr. Culpepper’s conduct at its inception and prevented the misuse of these and future funds. The Company has made a claim for damages against RSM in an amount in excess of $10 million. The Complaint against RSM has been filed and RSM has moved to dismiss the Complaint. The parties are briefing this motion and expect it to be argued to the Court in the next 60 days. Other Regulatory Matters From time to time the Company receives subpoenas and/or requests for information from governmental agencies with respect to its business. The Company received a subpoena from the staff of the SEC related to the travel expense advancements and reimbursements received by Dr. Dees. The Company also received a subsequent subpoena from the staff of the SEC related to the travel expense advancements and reimbursements received by Mr. Culpepper. At this time, the staff’s investigation into these matters remains ongoing, and the Company is cooperating with the staff. The Company also has engaged in settlement negotiations with the staff but no agreement has been approved by the Commission at this time, and there can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached. |