COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]

9)	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

The Company is involved in litigation and arbitrations from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Legal fees and other costs associated with such actions are expensed as incurred. In addition, the Company assesses the need to record a liability for litigation and contingencies. The Company reserves for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable, and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Merger-Related Shareholder Litigation

Brooklyn (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.) and its former directors were named as defendants in ten substantially similar actions arising out of the Merger that were brought by purported pre-Merger stockholders of Brooklyn: Henson v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08663-LGS (S.D.N.Y.); Monsour v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08755-LGS (S.D.N.Y.); Amanfo v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08747-LGS (S.D.N.Y.); Carlson v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00047-LGS (S.D.N.Y.); Finger v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00728-LGS (S.D.N.Y.); Falikman v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-05106-EK-SJB (E.D.N.Y.); Haas v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-02123-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.); Gallo v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-00157-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal.); Chinta v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01401-CFC (D. Del.); and Nicosia v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00125-CFC (D. Del.) (collectively, the “Stockholder Actions”). Only two of the Stockholder Actions (the Chinta and Nicosia cases) also named Brooklyn. These actions asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and both the Chinta and Nicosia cases alleged that Brooklyn LLC is a controlling person of Brooklyn. The complaints generally alleged that the defendants failed to disclose allegedly material information in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed on October 2, 2020, including: (1) certain details regarding any projections or forecasts of Brooklyn or Brooklyn LLC may have made, and the analyses performed by Brooklyn’s financial advisor, Newbridge Securities Corporation; (2) conflicts concerning the sales process; and (3) disclosures regarding whether or not Brooklyn entered into any confidentiality agreements with standstill and/or “don’t ask, don’t waive” provisions. The complaints generally alleged that these purported failures to disclose rendered the Form S-4 false and misleading. The complaints requested: preliminary and permanent injunction of the Merger; rescission of the Merger if executed and/or rescissory damages in unspecified amounts; direction to the individual directors to disseminate a compliant Form S-4; an accounting by Brooklyn for all alleged damages suffered; a declaration that certain federal securities laws had been violated; and reimbursement of costs, including attorneys’ and expert fees and expenses. On or about February 26, 2021, in order to moot certain of the disclosure claims asserted in the Stockholder Actions, to avoid nuisance, potential expense, and delay, and to provide additional information to Brooklyn’s stockholders, Brooklyn determined to voluntarily supplement the Form S-4 with certain additional disclosures. In exchange for those disclosures, the plaintiffs in each of the Stockholder Actions agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims. All ten actions have now been dismissed. The parties are presently attempting to resolve a request of plaintiffs’ counsel for an award of attorneys’ fee and expenses based on the purported benefit contended to be conferred on Brooklyn’s stockholders as a result of the supplemental disclosures. If agreement cannot be reached, plaintiffs’ counsel have reserved their right to seek a fee and defendants have reserved their right to challenge fee application.

Dhesh Govender v. Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, LLC, et al., Index No. 650847/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2021)

On or about February 5, 2021, Dhesh Govender, a former short-term consultant of Brooklyn LLC, filed a complaint against Brooklyn LLC and certain individuals that plaintiff alleges were directors of Brooklyn LLC. The complaint is captioned, Dhesh Govender v. Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, LLC, et al., Index No. 650847/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2021). Plaintiff purports to state claims against Brooklyn LLC and the individual defendants under the New York State Executive Law and the New York State Administrative Code, as well as other statutory and common law claims for alleged unlawful and discriminatory conduct based on race, national origin and hostile work environment. Plaintiff also asserts various breach of contract, fraud and quantum meruit claims based on an alleged oral agreement pursuant to which he alleges Brooklyn LLC agreed to hire him as an executive once the Merger was completed. In particular, plaintiff alleges that, in exchange for transferring an opportunity to obtain an agreement to acquire a license from Novellus for its mRNA-based gene editing and cell reprogramming technology to Brooklyn LLC, he was promised a $500,000 salary and 7% of the equity of Brooklyn LLC. Based on these and other allegations, plaintiff seeks damages of not less than $10 million, a permanent injunction enjoining Brooklyn LLC from exercising the option to acquire such license from Novellus or completing the proposed Merger. On or about February 19, 2021, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same causes of action but withdrawing the request for injunctive relief. On or about April 26, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby the defendants agreed to accept service of the amended complaint without waiver of any defenses, including jurisdictional defenses, except for improper service, and the plaintiff agreed to extend defendants’ time to respond to the complaint to June 6, 2021. On June 6, 2021, we filed a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, for partial dismissal of the complaint for failure to state viable fraud, quantum meruit and employment discrimination claims. After obtaining extensions of time to respond, plaintiff opposed the defendants’motion on August 9, 2021. The defendants’ reply is due on September 3, 2021. At this stage in the litigation, the Company is not able to predict the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome.

Carlson v. Allen Wolff, Michael Gottlieb, Richard Simtob, Susan Miller, and NTN Buzztime, Inc., C.A. No. 2021-0193-KSJM (Del. Ch. Ct.)

On or about March 12, 2021, Douglas Carlson, a purported stockholder of Brooklyn (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.), filed a verified class action complaint against Brooklyn and its then current members of the board of directors, for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties and violating Section 211(c) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In particular, plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to hold an annual stockholder meeting. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment at the same time that he filed his complaint. In order to moot the claim addressed in the complaint, Brooklyn agreed to hold its annual meeting on June 29, 2021, which date was subsequently rescheduled to August 20, 2021. On or about May 6, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation, which was “so ordered” by the court, extending defendants’ time to respond to the complaint and to file their answering brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on or before July 16, 2021 and providing that plaintiff’s reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment is due on or before August 20, 2021. On or about July 12, 2021, the parties entered in a further amended scheduling order providing that defendants shall respond to the complaint and file their answering brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on or before September 16, 2021 and plaintiff shall file its reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment on or before October 20, 2021. At this stage in the litigation, the Company is not able to predict the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome.

Robert Garfield Matter

On April 29, 2021, Robert Garfield, a purported stockholder of Brooklyn, sent to Brooklyn a demand letter that had purportedly been sent to Brooklyn (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.) on or about March 16, 2021. The demand letter asserts that, Brooklyn (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.) made material misstatements in a prospectus issued in seeking a stockholder vote on March 15, 2021 with respect to an amendment to Brooklyn’s certificate of incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares from 15 million to 100 million. The demand letter seeks to have Brooklyn deem the amendment to the certificate of incorporation ineffective or seek valid stockholder approval of such amendment and for Brooklyn to implement internal controls.

Brooklyn has decided to seek stockholder ratification of the March 15, 2021 stockholder vote concerning an amendment to Brooklyn’s certificate of incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares from 15 million to 100 million pursuant to Sections 204 and 205 of the Delaware General Corporation Law at the annual meeting of stockholders scheduled to take place on August 20, 2021.

Edmund Truell Matter

On May 14, 2021, Edmund Truell, a stockholder of Brooklyn, alleged that he sustained a loss because he was unable to sell shares of common stock timely due to a delay caused by Brooklyn’s issuance of stock certificates in lieu of electronic book entry.

Emerald Private Equity Fund, LLC Matter

By letter dated July 7, 2021, Emerald Private Equity Fund, LLC, a stockholder of Brooklyn, made a demand pursuant to 8 Del. C. 220 to inspect certain books and records of Brooklyn. The stated purpose of the demand is to investigate possible wrongdoing by persons responsible for the implementation of the Merger and the issuance of paper stock certificates. The stockholder states that it is making its demand for the purpose of investigating whether: (i) Brooklyn’s stock certificates were issued in accordance with the Merger Agreement; (ii) certain restrictions on the sale of Brooklyn common stock were proper and applied without favor; (iii) anyone received priority in post-Merger issuances of Brooklyn’s stock certificates that allowed them to benefit from an increase in the trading price of Brooklyn’s common stock; and (iv) it should pursue remedial measures and/or report alleged misconduct to the SEC. Brooklyn has responded to the demand letter, and the parties are presently negotiating the terms of a confidentiality agreement that will govern the production of certain documents that are responsive to the demand.

Licensing Agreements

USF

Brooklyn LLC has license agreements with University of South Florida Research Association, Inc. (“USF”), granting Brooklyn LLC the right to sell, market, and distribute IRX-2, subject to a 7% royalty payable to USF based on a percentage of gross product sales. Under the license agreement with USF, Brooklyn LLC is obligated to repay patent prosecution expenses incurred by USF. To date, Brooklyn LLC has not recorded any product sales, or obligations related to USF patent prosecution expenses. The license agreement terminates upon the expiration of the IRX-2 patents.

Novellus, Ltd. and Factor

In December 2020, Brooklyn LLC entered into option agreements (the “Option Agreements”) with Novellus Therapeutics Limited (“Novellus, Ltd.”) and Factor Bioscience Limited (“Factor,” and together with Novellus, Ltd., the “Licensors”) to obtain the right to exclusively license the Licensors’ intellectual property and mRNA cell reprogramming and gene editing technology for use in the development of certain cell-based therapies to be evaluated and developed for treating human diseases, including certain types of cancer, sickle cell disease, and beta thalassemia (the “Licensed Technology”). The option was exercisable before February 28, 2021 (or April 30, 2021 if the Merger had not closed by that date) and required Brooklyn LLC to pay a non-refundable option fee of $500,000 and then an initial license fee of $4.0 million (including the non-refundable fee of $500,000) in order to exercise the option.

In April 2021, Brooklyn LLC and the Licensors amended the Option Agreements to extend the exercise period to May 21, 2021 and to require Brooklyn, LLC to pay a total $1,000,000 of the $4,000,000 initial license fees to the Licensors by April 15, 2021.

In April 2021, Brooklyn LLC and the Licensors entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “License Agreement”) pursuant to which Brooklyn LLC acquired an exclusive worldwide license to the Licensed Technology. Under the terms of the License Agreement, Brooklyn LLC is obligated to pay the Licensors a total of $4.0 million in connection with the execution of the License Agreement, all of which had been paid as of June 30, 2021. Brooklyn LLC is obligated to pay to the Licensors additional fees of $5,000,000 in October 2021 and $7,000,000 in October 2022.

Brooklyn LLC is also required to use commercially reasonably efforts to achieve certain delineated milestones, including specified clinical development and regulatory milestones and specified commercialization milestones. In general, upon its achievement of these milestones, Brooklyn LLC will be obligated, in the case of development and regulatory milestones, to make milestone payments to the Licensors in specified amounts and, in the case of commercialization milestones, specified royalties with respect to product sales, sublicense fees or sales of pediatric review vouchers. In the event Brooklyn LLC fails to timely achieve certain delineated milestones, the Licensors may have the right to terminate Brooklyn LLC’s rights under provisions of the License Agreement relating to those milestones. (See Note 13.)

Royalty Agreements

Collaborator Royalty Agreement

Effective June 22, 2018, IRX terminated its Research, Development and Option Facilitation Agreement and its Options Agreement (the “RDO and Options Agreements”) with a collaborative partner (the “Collaborator”), pursuant to a termination agreement (the “Termination Agreement”). The Termination Agreement was assigned to Brooklyn, LLC in November 2018 when Brooklyn LLC acquired the assets of IRX. In connection with the Termination Agreement, all of the rights granted to the Collaborator under the RDO and Options Agreements were terminated, and Brooklyn LLC has no obligation to refund any payments received from the Collaborator. As consideration for entering into the Termination Agreement, the Collaborator will receive a royalty equal to 6% of revenues from the sale of IRX-2, for the period of time beginning with the first sale of IRX-2 through the later of (i) the twelfth anniversary of the first sale of IRX-2 or (ii) the expiration of the last IRX patent, or other exclusivity of IRX-2.

Investor Royalty Agreement

On March 22, 2021, Brooklyn LLC restated its royalty agreement with certain beneficial holders of Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics Investors GP LLC and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics Investors LP, whereby such beneficial holders will continue to receive, on an annual basis, royalties in an aggregate amount equal to 4% of the net revenues of IRX-2, a cytokine-based therapy being developed by Brooklyn LLC to treat patients with cancer.

Royalty Agreement with certain former IRX Therapeutics Investors

On May 1, 2012, IRX Therapeutics entered into a royalty agreement (the “IRX Investor Royalty Agreement”) with certain investors who participated in a financing transaction. The IRX Investor Royalty Agreement was assigned to Brooklyn LLC in November 2018 when Brooklyn LLC acquired the assets of IRX. Pursuant to the IRX Investor Royalty Agreement, when Brooklyn LLC becomes obligated to pay royalties to USF under the agreement described above under “Licensing Agreements-USF,” it will pay an additional royalty of 1% of gross sales to an entity organized by the investors who participated in such financing transaction. There are no termination provisions in the IRX Investor Royalty Agreement. Brooklyn LLC has not recognized any revenues to date, and no royalties are due pursuant to any of the above-mentioned royalty agreements.