XML 37 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings PCT is subject to legal and regulatory actions that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The assessment as to whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and as to whether such loss or a range of such losses is estimable, often involves significant judgment about future events, and the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. Other than as described below, there is no material pending or threatened litigation against PCT that remains outstanding as of December 31, 2022. Shareholder Securities Litigation Beginning on or about May 11, 2021, two putative class action complaints were filed against PCT, certain senior members of management and others, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints generally allege that the applicable defendants made false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings regarding the Technology, PCT’s business and PCT’s prospects. The first putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by William C. Theodore against PCT and certain senior members of management (the “Theodore Lawsuit”). The second putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by David Tennenbaum against PCT, certain senior members of management and others (the “Tennenbaum Lawsuit” and, together with the Theodore Lawsuit, the “Class Action Lawsuits”). On July 14, 2021, the court granted a motion to consolidate the Class Action Lawsuits and on July 27, 2021, Tennenbaum filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice. On August 5, 2021, the Court entered an order appointing the Mariusz Ciecko and Robert Ciecko as Co-Lead Plaintiffs (“Lead Plaintiffs”) and Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel. On September 27, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint seeks to represent a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PCT’s securities between November 16, 2020, and May 5, 2021, certification of the alleged class, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The consolidated amended complaint relies on information included in a research report published by Hindenburg Research LLC. On November 12, 2021, PCT and the individual defendants affiliated with PCT (“PCT Defendants”) and Byron Roth each filed separate motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On December 28, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to the PCT Defendants’ and Byron Roth’s motions to dismiss. On January 18, 2022, the PCT Defendants filed a reply to Lead Plaintiffs’ brief. On August 4, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed the Class Action Lawsuits, without prejudice. The Court provided the Lead Plaintiffs until August 18, 2022 to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 18, 2022. On September 15, 2022, the PCT Defendants and Byron Roth each filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions to dismiss on October 20, 2022. Defendants were granted leave to file a reply and filed the reply on October 31, 2022. The PCT Defendants intend to vigorously defend the Class Action Lawsuits. Given the stage of the litigation, PCT cannot reasonably estimate at this time whether there will be any loss, or if there is a loss, the possible range of loss, that may arise from the unresolved Class Action Lawsuits. Derivative Litigation On November 3, 2021, Byung-Gook Han, a purported PCT shareholder, derivatively and purportedly on behalf of PCT, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Byung-Gook Han v. Otworth et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-UNA) against certain senior members of PCT’s management, PCT’s directors and Byron Roth, who was subsequently dismissed (collectively, the “Individual Han Defendants”), alleging violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and breaches of fiduciary duties and bringing claims for unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets (“Han Derivative Suit"). The Han Derivative Suit generally alleges that the Individual Han Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in press releases, webinars and other public filings regarding the Technology, PCT’s business, PCT’s prospects, and the background and experience of the Individual Han Defendants. The Han Derivative Suit seeks unspecified monetary damages, reform of the company's corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified restitution from the Individual Han Defendants, and costs and fees associated with bringing the action. On January 19, 2022, the court in the Han Derivative Suit granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Han Derivative Suit and administratively closed the matter pending the disposition of the motions to dismiss in the Class Action Lawsuits. Should the Han Derivative Suit be reopened in the future, the Individual Han Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the Han Derivative Suit. Given the stage of the litigation, PCT cannot reasonably estimate at this time whether there will be any loss, or if there is a loss, the possible range of loss, that may arise from the unresolved Han Derivative Suit. On January 27, 2022, Patrick Ayers, a purported PCT shareholder, derivatively and purportedly on behalf of PCT, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court of the District of Delaware, captioned Patrick Ayers v. Otworth et. al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00110, against certain members of PCT’s management, PCT’s directors and others (collectively, the “Individual Ayers Defendants), alleging violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and breaches of fiduciary duties, as well as claims for unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, contribution, and indemnification (“Ayers Derivative Suit"). The Ayers Derivative Suit generally alleges that the Individual Ayers Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in press releases, webinars and other public filings regarding the Technology, PCT’s business, PCT’s prospects, and the background and experience of the Individual Ayers Defendants. The Ayers Derivative Suit seeks unspecified monetary damages, declaratory relief, unspecified disgorgement and restitution from the Individual Ayers Defendants, and costs and fees associated with bringing the action. At this stage of the litigation, neither PCT nor the Individual Ayers Defendants have answered Ayers’ complaint, moved to dismiss the complaint, or otherwise responded to the complaint. On March 17, 2022, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Ayers Derivative Suit and administratively closed the matter pending the disposition of the motions to dismiss in the Class Action Lawsuits. The Individual Ayers Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the Ayers Derivative Suit. Given the stage of the litigation, PCT cannot reasonably estimate at this time whether there will be any loss, or if there is a loss, the possible range of loss, that may arise from the unresolved Ayers Derivative Suit. In the future, PCT may become party to additional legal matters and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. While PCT is unable to predict the outcome of the above or future matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any such pending matters will have a material adverse effect on its overall financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Other Matters On February 3, 2023, the Company received a books and records demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, from a purported stockholder of the Company, in connection with the stockholder’s investigation of, among other matters, potential breaches of fiduciary duty, mismanagement, self-dealing, corporate waste or other violations of law by the Company’s Board with respect to these matters. We are currently unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration