XML 27 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Class Action Lawsuit

As previously disclosed, a consolidated class action lawsuit (captioned Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-00982) has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, Douglas McCrosson; the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer; Vincent Palazzolo, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer; and the two underwriters of the Company’s October 16, 2018 offering of common stock, Canaccord Genuity LLC and B. Riley FBR. The Amended Complaint in the action asserts claims on behalf of two plaintiff classes: (i) purchasers of the Company’s common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company’s offering conducted on or about October 16, 2018; and (ii) purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 22, 2018 and February 14, 2020. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), by negligently permitting false and misleading statements to be included in the registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in connection with its October 16, 2018 securities offering. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making false and misleading statements in the Company’s periodic reports filed between March 22, 2018 and February 14, 2020. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; rescission or a rescissory measure of damages; unspecified equitable or injunctive relief; and costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and expert fees. On February 19, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 23, 2021.

On May 20, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in the amount of $3,600,000, subject to court approval. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On November 10, 2021, a magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant the motion for preliminary approval in its entirety. The Court adopted the recommendation on May 27, 2022, and entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on June 7, 2022. The magistrate judge will hold a hearing on September 9, 2022 to decide whether to recommend final approval of the settlement. As of March 31, 2021, we have previously paid or accrued to our financial statements covered expenses totaling $750,000, and have therefore met our insurance carrier’s directors’ and officers’ retention requirement, which caps the Company’s expenses pertaining to the class action suit.

At March 31, 2022, in order to reflect the amounts owed from our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier and to the Plaintiffs, we have recorded to our balance sheet a litigation settlement obligation of $3,600,000 and an insurance recovery receivable of $3,474,424, which is lower than the total owed to the Plaintiffs by the amount of covered expenses that the Company has not yet paid in cash as of March 31, 2022 (the “Covered Expenses”); once the Company has paid the remaining Covered Expenses in cash, the insurance recovery receivable will be equalized with the litigation settlement obligation. Both this obligation and receivable will be relieved from our balance sheet upon the payment of the Settlement Amount to the Plaintiff by our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier.

Shareholder Derivative Action

Four shareholder derivative actions, each based on substantially the same facts as those alleged in the class action discussed above, have been filed against certain of our current and former directors and officers.

The first action (captioned Moulton v. McCrosson, et.al., No. 20-cv-02092) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for violations of Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks declaratory, equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2021, the Court stayed the action pursuant to a joint stipulation filed by the parties.

The second action (captioned Woodyard v. McCrosson, et al., Index No. 613169/2020) was filed on September 17, 2020, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Suffolk County). It purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct, along with declaratory, equitable, injunctive and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On December 22, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action pending further developments in the class action.

The third action (captioned Berger v. McCrosson, et al., No. 1:20-cv-05454) was filed on November 10, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, which is based in part on the shareholder’s inspection of certain corporate books and records, purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to implement reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures and to recover on behalf of the Company an unspecified amount of monetary damages. The complaint also seeks equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs.

On March 19, 2021, the parties to the Moulton and Berger actions filed a joint stipulation consolidating the actions (under the caption In re CPI Aerostructures Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 20-cv-02092) and staying the consolidated action pending further developments in the class action.

The fourth action (captioned Wurst v. Bazaar, et al., Index No. 605244/2021) was filed on March 24, 2021, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Suffolk County). The complaint purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks declaratory, equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On April 12, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action pending further developments in the class action.

On June 13, 2022, the plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action informed the Court that the Company (as nominal defendant) and all individual defendants had reached an agreement in principle with all plaintiffs to settle the four shareholder derivative lawsuits described above. On June 16, 2022, the plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 22, 2022, the Court referred the motion to the magistrate judge; the motion remains pending. The magistrate judge will hold a conference on September 9, 2022 in the consolidated federal action. The settlement is subject to Court approval and, if approved, will result in the dismissal of the shareholder derivative lawsuits. As part of the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed to undertake (or confirm that it has undertaken already) certain corporate governance reforms and to pay attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ counsel. The attorneys’ fees will be covered and paid by our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier, in light of our satisfaction of our $750,000 retention.

SEC Investigation

On May 22, 2020, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC Division of Enforcement (the “Division”) seeking documents and information relating, among other things, to previously disclosed errors in and restatement of the Company’s financial statements, the Company’s October 16, 2018 equity offering and the recent separation of the Company’s former Chief Financial Officers. By letter dated March 12, 2021, the Division Staff notified the Company that the Division has concluded its investigation and, based on the information the Division has as of such date, it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. The Division’s notice was provided under the guidelines described in the final paragraph of Securities Act Release No. 5310 which states in part that the notice “must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff’s investigation.”