Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

11)	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. Following the dismissal the parties amicably resolved plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses based on the purported benefit contented to be conferred on Brooklyn’s stockholders as a result of the supplemental disclosures.

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 alleges that Brooklyn LLC and certain of its officers and directors (“defendants”) engaged in 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 June 6, 2021, defendants 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 filed their reply on September 3, 2021. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to compel arbitration and/or dismiss and the motion to seal on October 13, 2021. By Order dated November 10, 2021, the Court granted defendants’ motion to compel Govender to arbitrate all of his claims against them, based on the arbitration clause of his consulting agreement with Brooklyn LLC. Govender thereafter filed his Statement of Claim (the “Demand”) with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), Case No. 01-21-0017-9417, on December 15, 2021 against the same defendants, and served it on defendants’ counsel on February 3, 2022. In his Demand, Govender continues to assert statutory discrimination claims against all defendants, claims against Brooklyn LLC premised on the breach of an alleged oral promise to issue Govender 7% of the equity of Brooklyn LLC and to employ Govender at a $500,000 annual salary in exchange for allegedly arranging and negotiating the Novellus license, common law fraud claims against Brooklyn LLC and Cherington based on the breach of these same promises and a claim for quantum meruit against the Brooklyn LLC. In his Demand, Govender now claims that the fair and reasonable value of his services on the quantum meruit claim exceeded $100 million and is seeking damages in an amount to be determined at the hearing. Defendants filed an answering statement to the Demand on February 28, 2022 and the parties are in the process of conferring on the selection of a three-member arbitration panel. Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves against these claims. 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, which provided that defendants were to 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 was to file its reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment on or before October 20, 2021. On August 20, 2021, Brooklyn convened its 2021 annual meeting. Due to the lack of a required quorum, the meeting was adjourned to September 3, 2021. Thereafter, Brooklyn obtained a quorum, and the annual meeting was held on September 3, 2021. On September 10, 2021, Brooklyn filed a report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing the results of the annual meeting. On September 16, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation seeking voluntary dismissal of the complaint as moot. The Court entered the dismissal on September 16, 2021 with prejudice as to the named plaintiff and without prejudice as to other members of the purported class and retained jurisdiction for the purpose of determining any fee application to the extent it cannot be resolved amicably the parties. Thereafter, on or about November 12, 2022, the parties resolved plaintiff’s counsel’s request for an award of fees and expenses for the purported benefit that Carlson contended was received by stockholders as a result of his action.

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 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 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Stockholder ratification was obtained at the annual meeting of stockholders that took place on September 3, 2021. As a result of the ratification, Garfield advised that the claims set forth in his demand letter were moot. The parties thereafter resolved Garfield’s counsel’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses for the purported benefit that Garfield contented was received by stockholders as a result of the stockholder ratification.

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 a letter dated July 7, 2021, Emerald Private Equity Fund, LLC (“Emerald”), 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, including 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 following the Merger 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 has produced certain information to Emerald in connection with the demand, which is subject to the terms of a confidentiality agreement entered into among the parties, including certain additional stockholders who have subsequently joined as parties to such agreement (including Truell noted above). In October 2021, Emerald requested that Brooklyn produce additional information related to the authority, purpose and justification for the restriction imposed on the sale of Brooklyn common stock following the Merger and the timing of share delivery to Brooklyn stockholders, following which request Brooklyn agreed to produce certain additional information and emails relating to these topics.

On March 30, 2022, counsel to Emerald advised the Company that it was prepared to file suit against the Company, certain current and former directors of the Company, and the Company’s financial advisor in connection with the Merger, on behalf of Emerald and a class of similarly situated stockholders with respect to some or all of the foregoing matters, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Emerald’s counsel has expressed a willingness to engage in private pre-suit early resolution discussions with the Company and its financial advisor on behalf of individual stockholders whom counsel represents in addition to Emerald; and the Company has agreed to respond to Emerald’s counsel by April 22, 2022. The Company can provide no assurance that such pre-suit early resolution discussions will be successful or that suit will not ultimately be filed against the Company, nor can the Company currently predict the outcome of any such suit, if filed. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against any and all claims. Additionally, on April 7, 2022, the Company received a demand for indemnification from its financial advisor as it relates to the aforementioned potential lawsuit.

John Westman v. Novellus, Inc., Christopher Rohde, and Matthew Angel, Civil Action No. 2181CV01949 (Middlesex County (Massachusetts) Superior Court)

On or about September 7, 2021, John Westman, a former employee of Novellus, Inc. filed a Complaint in Middlesex County (Massachusetts) Superior Court against Novellus, Inc. and the company’s founders and former executives, Christopher Rohde and Matthew Angel (collectively, “Defendants”). Brooklyn acquired Novellus, Inc. on July 16, 2021. Mr. Westman’s claims relate to alleged conduct that took place before Brooklyn acquired Novellus, Inc. Pursuant to the July 16, 2021 Agreement and Plan of Acquisition, as well as a separate agreement among Brooklyn, Novellus, Inc., Mr. Rohde, and Mr. Angel, Mr. Rohde and Mr. Angel are essentially assuming the defense of and paying the fees associated with defending against these claims. To that end, on September 10, 2021, Morgan Lewis accepted service on behalf of all defendants. On December 24, 2021, Westman dismissed the case without prejudice so the parties could mediate the matter. The parties’ February 2022 mediation was unsuccessful, but Mr. Westman has not refiled suit.

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, Ltd. and Factor (together, 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 $4,000,000 (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 $4,000,000 in connection with the execution of the License Agreement, all of which had been paid as of June 30, 2021.

The completion of the acquisition of Novellus, Ltd. relieved Brooklyn LLC from potential obligations to pay Novellus, Ltd. certain upfront fees, clinical development milestone fees and post-registration royalties under the License Agreement. The agreement with Factor under the License Agreement, which grants Brooklyn LLC exclusive rights to develop certain next-generation mRNA gene editing and cell therapy products, remained unchanged. Accordingly, Brooklyn LLC is obligated to pay to Factor a fee of $3,500,000 in October 2022, which will be in addition to a fee of $2,500,000 paid to Factor in October 2021.

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 to pay, in the case of development and regulatory milestones, 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 will have the right to terminate Brooklyn LLC’s rights under provisions of the License Agreement relating to those milestones.

Novellus, Ltd. also has a license agreement with Factor, which was entered into in February 2015, amended in June 2018 and March 2020, and then amended and restated in November 2020. This license agreement provides for Novellus, Ltd. to use over 70 granted patents owned by Factor throughout the world covering synthetic mRNA, RNA-based gene editing, and RNA-based cell reprogramming, in addition to specific patents covering methods for treating specific diseases. There are also more than 60 pending patent applications throughout the world focused on these and other aspects of the technology. The patent coverage includes granted patents and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, and Japan, along with other major life sciences markets.

Novellus, Ltd. is 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, Novellus, Ltd. will be obligated, in the case of development and regulatory milestones, to make milestone payments of up to $51 million in aggregate to Factor 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 Novellus, Ltd. fails to timely achieve certain delineated milestones, Factor may have the right to terminate Novellus, Ltd.’s rights under provisions of the License Agreement relating to those milestones.

NoveCite

In October 2020, Novellus, Ltd. (as sublicensor) and NoveCite (as sublicensee) entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “Sublicense”) to license novel cellular therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome, which NoveCite is licensing from Factor. Under the sublicense agreement, NoveCite is 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, NoveCite will be obligated, in the case of development and regulatory milestones, to make milestone payments to the Novellus, Ltd. 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.

Under the terms of the Sublicense, in the event that Novellus, Ltd. receives any revenue involving the original cell line included in the licensed technology, then Novellus, Ltd. shall remit to NoveCite 50% of such revenue.

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.