XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies Stockholders Litigation On July 8, 2019, and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19, respectively. In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for its IPO; and two of the Company’s stockholders. On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which proceeded under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19. Each plaintiff was appointed a co-lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which sought certification of a class of stockholders who purchased common stock in the IPO or whose purchases are traceable to that offering. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 31, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to stay the action in favor of the pending federal action (discussed below). On February 21, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On March 2, 2020, the court entered an amended order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the N.J. Superior Court – Appellate Division. The appeal was argued on September 27, 2021. On October 8, 2021, the Appellate Division issued an order reversing the decision of the Superior Court. The case has been remanded to the Superior Court for oral argument on the motion to dismiss. On November 11, 2021, the defendants filed a supplemental motion to dismiss based on the forum selection clause in our certificate of incorporation's. On December 10, 2021, the Superior Court heard argument of the original motion to dismiss and the supplemental motion to dismiss based on the federal forum selection clause. On December 14, 2021, the Superior Court granted the supplemental motion to dismiss based on the federal forum selection clause with prejudice and granted the original motion to dismiss without prejudice. On January 27, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division. On April 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their appeal brief. The brief of defendant-appellees was filed on May 16, 2022. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on April 19, 2023. On September 26, 2019, and October 31, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company served putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400, and Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653, respectively. In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for the IPO. The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of stockholders who (i) purchased the Company’s common stock in the IPO or whose purchases are traceable to the IPO, or (ii) who purchased common stock between the IPO and September 25, 2019. The complaints each alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with respect to (i) the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO, and (ii) certain post-IPO disclosures filed with the SEC. The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The Priewe case was voluntarily dismissed on February 19, 2020. In the Turnofsky case, on November 25, 2019, several plaintiffs and their counsel moved to be selected as lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted the motion of Carole Tibbs and the firm Bragar, Eagel & Squire, P.C. On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Turnofsky. In addition to the prior claims, the amended complaint added an additional director defendant and two investors as defendants and adds a claim against the Company and the underwriters for violating Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. On September 15, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On November 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company and the other defendants filed reply papers in support of the motion on December 7, 2020. Argument of the motion to dismiss occurred on June 18, 2021. On August 13, 2021, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to re-plead. On October 4, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the Turnofsky case. The defendants have moved to dismiss. Briefing on the motion was complete on January 7, 2022. On July 5, 2022, the case was reassigned to Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, who has ordered that he will consider the pending motion to dismiss in due course. Argument of the motion has not yet been scheduled. On March 4, 2021, purported stockholder Richard Maltz brought a purported stockholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action is captioned Richard Maltz, derivatively on behalf of electroCore, Inc., vs. Francis R. Amato, et al., Case 3:21-cv-04135. The defendants include present and past directors and officers of the Company. The plaintiff purports to pursue derivative claims on behalf of the Company in connection with the IPO and actions occurring between the IPO and September 25, 2019. The complaint alleges that demand on the board of directors is excused. The complaint purports to allege claims against the defendants for violating Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaching fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets. The complaint also purports to allege claims for contribution in connection with the Turnofsky case described above, pursuant to Section 11(f) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees; declaratory relief; and an order requiring changes to corporate governance and internal procedures and a vote on proposed amendments to the Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation. On March 8, 2021, purported stockholder Erin Yuson brought a purported stockholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action is captioned Erin Yuson, derivatively on behalf of electroCore, Inc., vs. Francis R. Amato, et al., Case 3:21-cv-04481. The defendants include present and past directors and officers of the Company. The plaintiff purports to pursue derivative claims on behalf of the Company in connection with a 2019 proxy statement and actions occurring from the IPO through September 25, 2019. The complaint alleges that demand on the board of directors is excused. The complaint purports to allege claims against the defendants for violating Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breaching fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees; declaratory relief; and an order requiring changes to corporate governance and internal procedures and a vote on proposed amendments to the Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation. The plaintiffs in the Maltz and Yuson derivative actions agreed to consolidate and stay those actions. The actions are stayed until and through the resolution of any motion for summary judgment in the Turnofsky federal securities class action. A stipulation to that effect was filed by the plaintiffs on April 14, 2021, and ordered by the court on April 30, 2021. These cases also have been re-assigned to Judge Quraishi. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters. However, in light of, among other things, the preliminary stage of these litigation matters, the Company is unable to determine the reasonable probability of loss or a range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not established an accrual for potential losses, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome, and there can be no assurance that these litigation matters will not result in substantial defense costs and/or judgments or settlements that could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition. The Company is subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions in the normal course of business from time to time. The Company is not aware of any further currently pending litigation for which it believes the outcome could have a material adverse effect on its operations or financial position. The Company expenses associated legal fees including those relating to the stockholder litigation described in this Note 12 in the period they are incurred.

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