LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 11. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Class Action Lawsuit. On April 10, 2017, the SEC announced settlements with the Company and with other public companies and unrelated parties in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotion investigation. The Company's settlement with the SEC is consistent with its previous disclosures (including in its Annual Report on Form 10-K that the Company filed with the SEC on March 9, 2017). On April 14, 2017, a purported shareholder filed a complaint seeking class action status in the United States District Court, Northern District of California for violations of the federal securities laws (Leonard DeSilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17cv2086) against its company and three of its former officers and directors. On April 19, 2017, a second class action complaint (Amra Kuc vs. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2188) was filed in the same court. Both complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh, its former CEO, and its former investor relations firm that were the subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions investigation. On July 20, 2017, the plaintiff in the Kuc case filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss that case. The court entered an order dismissing the Kuc complaint on July 21, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the court appointed a movant as lead plaintiff. On September 8, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Jay Rabkin v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2086) seeking class action status that alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh and its former investor relations firm that were the subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions SEC investigation. On February 5, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing two of plaintiff’s six claims. As the result of mediation, on September 28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for settlement, the cost of which, if approved, is expected to be borne by the Company’s insurance carrier and would result in no loss to the Company. The court gave preliminary approval to the proposed settlement on November 30, 2018, and the final hearing is currently scheduled for April 12, 2019. Derivative Lawsuits. On December 15, 2017, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed by plaintiff Kevin Fong against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers and directors, and others, as defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (case no. 1:17-cv-1806). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder arising from the SEC’s investigation in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions investigation and its April 10, 2017 settlement thereof, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and injunctive relief. On March 28, 2018, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed by plaintiff Nazeer Khaleeluddin on behalf of the Company, against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors, and others, as defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (case no. 1:18-cv-00469). The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaint is based on claims arising from the SEC’s investigation in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions investigation and the Company’s April 10, 2017 settlement thereof, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and injunctive relief. On May 1, 2018, the court consolidated this case with the aforementioned purported stockholder derivative case filed by plaintiff Kevin Fong. The consolidated case is titled In re Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation (lead case no. 17-cv-1806). On January 28, 2020, the parties reached a proposed settlement, which is currently awaiting preliminary approval by the court. The terms of the settlement will be disseminated to shareholders as part of the notice process for the settlement if preliminary approval is granted. If the proposed settlement is given final approval by the court, the Company does not expect to incur any significant costs or expenses in connection with this settlement. Based on the current stage of the litigation, and the uncertainty of final approval by the court, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters. Solomon Capital, LLC. On April 8, 2016, a lawsuit titled Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. was filed by Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(k) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (index no. 651881/2016) (the "First Solomon Suit"). The plaintiffs allege that, between June and November 2012, they provided to the Company $0.1 million and that they advanced and paid on behalf of the Company an additional $0.2 million. The complaint further alleges that the Company agreed to (i) provide them with promissory notes totaling $0.2 million, plus interest, (ii) issue a total of 1,110 shares to the Solomon Plaintiffs (after the 1-for-100 reverse split of our common stock effected in March 2013), and (iii) allow the plaintiffs to convert the foregoing funds into its securities in the next transaction. The plaintiffs allege that they should have been able to convert their advances and payments into shares of the Company's common stock in the restructuring that took effect in May 2013. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs allege causes for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and demand judgment against the Company in an unspecified amount exceeding $1.5 million, plus interest. The Company has asserted counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, alleging principally that the counterclaim defendants misrepresented their qualifications and failed to disclose that Solomon Sharbat was the subject of an investigation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") that resulted in the loss of his FINRA license. In our counterclaims, the Company are seeking damages in an amount exceeding $0.5 million and an order rescinding any and all agreements that the plaintiffs contend entitled them to obtain shares of Company stock. No trial date has been set for the lawsuit. On September 27, 2019, the Solomon Plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit (through new legal counsel) titled Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., f/k/a/ Lion Biotechnologies Inc. f/k/a/ Genesis Biopharma Inc., and Manish Singh in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (index no. 655668/2019) (the “Second Solomon Suit”). In the Second Solomon Suit, the Solomon Plaintiffs allege that they are third party beneficiaries of a “finder’s fee agreement” that prior management entered into with a third party unlicensed entity in 2012 in connection with seeking financing, that an agreement or understanding existed between the Company and the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs would be paid fees and commissions (in cash and stock) if they obtained financing for the Company, and that they directly and indirectly introduced investors to the Company who invested, or were willing to invest. Finally, the Solomon Plaintiffs allege that they were promised a license to use the Company’s technology in Israel. The plaintiffs claim that the Company breached the foregoing understandings, promises and agreements and, as a result, they are entitled to certain damages. The Solomon Plaintiffs also allege that Manish Singh, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, committed fraud and took shares belonging to them. On February 18, 2020, the Company filed a removal petition and removed the Second Solomon Suit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case has been assigned case no. 1:20-cv-1391. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint in the Second Solomon Suit. The Company intends to vigorously defend these complaints and pursue its counterclaims, as applicable. At the current stage of the litigation, in both the First Solomon Suit and the Second Solomon Suit, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters. Litigation Involving Dr. Steven Fischkoff. On June 13, 2017, in an action titled Steven Fischkoff v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. and Maria Fardis, Dr. Steven Fischkoff, the Company’s former Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Dr. Fischkoff was dismissed by the Company on March 28, 2017. Dr. Fischkoff was terminated “for cause” as that term is defined in his employment agreement. In his complaint, Dr. Fischkoff alleges breaches of his employment agreement and violation of New York Labor Law for failure to pay monies purportedly owed to him, and seeks to recover amounts including severance pay and retention bonus (totaling $300,000), a prorated incentive bonus, and amounts relating to unvested options to 150,000 shares of the Company's common stock, together with prejudgment interest, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. On July 5, 2017, the Company filed a removal petition and removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case has been assigned case no. 1:17-cv-05041. On July 14, 2017, the Company filed a partial answer and counterclaims against Dr. Fischkoff, denying his allegations, and alleging breach of contract and related claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and state and federal trade secret misappropriation and related claims, and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Dr. Fischkoff. On July 18, 2017, the court issued a temporary restraining order against Dr. Fischkoff requiring him to return the Company's materials, prohibiting him from disclosing or using the Company’s materials, and granting expedited discovery. On June 25, 2018, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Dr. Fischkoff from disclosing, possessing, or using any of the Company’s proprietary materials or trade secrets. On July 5, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing two of Dr. Fischkoff’s claims against the Company and Dr. Fardis. On October 18, 2018, Dr. Fischkoff amended his complaint to assert a new claim for defamation arising from SEC filings in which the Company provided the information about this litigation. No trial date has been set in this matter, and the parties are currently engaged in fact discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend against Dr. Fischkoff’s lawsuit and pursue the Company’s counterclaims. Based on the current stage of the litigation, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of (i) a possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this action, or (ii) the potential recovery that might result from a favorable judgment or a settlement of this action. Other Matters. During the second quarter of 2016, warrants representing 128,500 shares were exercised. The 128,500 shares of common stock had previously been registered for re-sale. However, the Company believes that these 128,500 warrant shares were sold by the holders in open market transactions in May 2016 at a time when the registration statement was ineffective. Accordingly, those sales were not made in accordance with Sections 5 and 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the purchasers of those shares may have rescission rights (if they still own the shares) or claims for damages (if they no longer own the shares). The amount of any such liability is uncertain and as such, an accrual for any potential loss has not been made. The Company believes that any claims brought against it would not result in a material impact to the Company’s financial position or results of operations. The Company has not accrued a loss for a potential claim associated with this matter as it is unable to estimate any at this time. In connection with the Company’s reincorporation from Nevada to Delaware in 2017, the Company (as a Delaware corporation) untimely filed a post-effective amendment to adopt a Form S-8 registration statement that the Company filed (as a Nevada corporation) to register the shares underlying the Company’s 2011 Equity Incentive Plan. Before the Company filed the required post-effective amendment, options to purchase 200,000 shares were exercised under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan. The effect of the delayed post-effective amendment filing on the 200,000 option shares is uncertain, but the issuance and sale of the shares may not have been in compliance with the Form S-8 registration statement. The existence of any liability to the Company, and the amount of any such liability to the Company, as a result of the issuance of the 200,000 shares is uncertain. Accordingly, no accrual for a potential claim has been made by the Company in its financial statements. The Company may be involved, from time to time, in legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company accrues amounts, to the extent they can be reasonably estimated, that it believes are adequate to address any liabilities related to legal proceedings and other loss contingencies that it believes will result in a probable loss. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingency involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matter will be resolved in a manner that would have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

NOTE 11. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Class Action Lawsuit. On April 10, 2017, the SEC announced settlements with the Company and with other public companies and unrelated parties in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotion investigation. The Company's settlement with the SEC is consistent with its previous disclosures (including in its Annual Report on Form 10-K that the Company filed with the SEC on March 9, 2017). On April 14, 2017, a purported shareholder filed a complaint seeking class action status in the United States District Court, Northern District of California for violations of the federal securities laws (Leonard DeSilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17cv2086) against its company and three of its former officers and directors. On April 19, 2017, a second class action complaint (Amra Kuc vs. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2188) was filed in the same court. Both complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh, its former CEO, and its former investor relations firm that were the subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions investigation. On July 20, 2017, the plaintiff in the Kuc case filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss that case. The court entered an order dismissing the Kuc complaint on July 21, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the court appointed a movant as lead plaintiff. On September 8, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Jay Rabkin v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2086) seeking class action status that alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh and its former investor relations firm that were the subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions SEC investigation. On February 5, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing two of plaintiff’s six claims. As the result of mediation, on September 28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for settlement, the cost of which, if approved, is expected to be borne by the Company’s insurance carrier and would result in no loss to the Company. The court gave preliminary approval to the proposed settlement on November 30, 2018, and the final hearing is currently scheduled for April 12, 2019.

Derivative Lawsuits. On December 15, 2017, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed by plaintiff Kevin Fong against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers and directors, and others, as defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (case no. 1:17-cv-1806). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder arising from the SEC’s investigation in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions investigation and its April 10, 2017 settlement thereof, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and injunctive relief. On March 28, 2018, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed by plaintiff Nazeer Khaleeluddin on behalf of the Company, against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors, and others, as defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (case no. 1:18-cv-00469). The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of securities law, breach

of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaint is based on claims arising from the SEC’s investigation in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions investigation and the Company’s April 10, 2017 settlement thereof, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and injunctive relief. On May 1, 2018, the court consolidated this case with the aforementioned purported stockholder derivative case filed by plaintiff Kevin Fong. The consolidated case is titled In re Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation (lead case no. 17-cv-1806). On January 28, 2020, the parties reached a proposed settlement, which is currently awaiting preliminary approval by the court. The terms of the settlement will be disseminated to shareholders as part of the notice process for the settlement if preliminary approval is granted. If the proposed settlement is given final approval by the court, the Company does not expect to incur any significant costs or expenses in connection with this settlement. Based on the current stage of the litigation, and the uncertainty of final approval by the court, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters.

Solomon Capital, LLC. On April 8, 2016, a lawsuit titled Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. was filed by Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(k) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (index no. 651881/2016) (the "First Solomon Suit"). The plaintiffs allege that, between June and November 2012, they provided to the Company $0.1 million and that they advanced and paid on behalf of the Company an additional $0.2 million. The complaint further alleges that the Company agreed to (i) provide them with promissory notes totaling $0.2 million, plus interest, (ii) issue a total of 1,110 shares to the Solomon Plaintiffs (after the 1-for-100 reverse split of our common stock effected in March 2013), and (iii) allow the plaintiffs to convert the foregoing funds into its securities in the next transaction. The plaintiffs allege that they should have been able to convert their advances and payments into shares of the Company's common stock in the restructuring that took effect in May 2013. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs allege causes for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and demand judgment against the Company in an unspecified amount exceeding $1.5 million, plus interest. The Company has asserted counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, alleging principally that the counterclaim defendants misrepresented their qualifications and failed to disclose that Solomon Sharbat was the subject of an investigation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") that resulted in the loss of his FINRA license. In our counterclaims, the Company are seeking damages in an amount exceeding $0.5 million and an order rescinding any and all agreements that the plaintiffs contend entitled them to obtain shares of Company stock. No trial date has been set for the lawsuit.

On September 27, 2019, the Solomon Plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit (through new legal counsel) titled Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., f/k/a/ Lion Biotechnologies Inc. f/k/a/ Genesis Biopharma Inc., and Manish Singh in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (index no. 655668/2019) (the “Second Solomon Suit”). In the Second Solomon Suit, the Solomon Plaintiffs allege that they are third party beneficiaries of a “finder’s fee agreement” that prior management entered into with a third party unlicensed entity in 2012 in connection with seeking financing, that an agreement or understanding existed between the Company and the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs would be paid fees and commissions (in cash and stock) if they obtained financing for the Company, and that they directly and indirectly introduced investors to the Company who invested, or were willing to invest. Finally, the Solomon Plaintiffs allege that they were promised a license to use the Company’s technology in Israel. The plaintiffs claim that the Company breached the foregoing understandings, promises and agreements and, as a result, they are entitled to certain damages. The Solomon Plaintiffs also allege that Manish Singh, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, committed fraud and took shares belonging to them. On February 18, 2020, the Company filed a removal petition and removed the Second Solomon Suit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case has been assigned case no. 1:20-cv-1391. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint in the Second Solomon Suit.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these complaints and pursue its counterclaims, as applicable. At the current stage of the litigation, in both the First Solomon Suit and the Second Solomon Suit, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters.

Litigation Involving Dr. Steven Fischkoff. On June 13, 2017, in an action titled Steven Fischkoff v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. and Maria Fardis, Dr. Steven Fischkoff, the Company’s former Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Dr. Fischkoff was dismissed by the Company on March 28, 2017. Dr. Fischkoff was terminated “for cause” as that term is defined in his employment agreement. In his complaint, Dr. Fischkoff alleges breaches of his employment agreement and violation of New York Labor Law for failure to pay monies purportedly owed to him, and seeks to recover amounts including severance pay and retention bonus (totaling $300,000), a prorated incentive bonus, and amounts relating to unvested options to 150,000 shares of the Company's common stock, together with prejudgment

interest, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. On July 5, 2017, the Company filed a removal petition and removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case has been assigned case no. 1:17-cv-05041. On July 14, 2017, the Company filed a partial answer and counterclaims against Dr. Fischkoff, denying his allegations, and alleging breach of contract and related claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and state and federal trade secret misappropriation and related claims, and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Dr. Fischkoff. On July 18, 2017, the court issued a temporary restraining order against Dr. Fischkoff requiring him to return the Company's materials, prohibiting him from disclosing or using the Company’s materials, and granting expedited discovery. On June 25, 2018, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Dr. Fischkoff from disclosing, possessing, or using any of the Company’s proprietary materials or trade secrets. On July 5, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing two of Dr. Fischkoff’s claims against the Company and Dr. Fardis. On October 18, 2018, Dr. Fischkoff amended his complaint to assert a new claim for defamation arising from SEC filings in which the Company provided the information about this litigation. No trial date has been set in this matter, and the parties are currently engaged in fact discovery.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against Dr. Fischkoff’s lawsuit and pursue the Company’s counterclaims. Based on the current stage of the litigation, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of (i) a possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this action, or (ii) the potential recovery that might result from a favorable judgment or a settlement of this action.

Other Matters. During the second quarter of 2016, warrants representing 128,500 shares were exercised. The 128,500 shares of common stock had previously been registered for re-sale. However, the Company believes that these 128,500 warrant shares were sold by the holders in open market transactions in May 2016 at a time when the registration statement was ineffective. Accordingly, those sales were not made in accordance with Sections 5 and 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the purchasers of those shares may have rescission rights (if they still own the shares) or claims for damages (if they no longer own the shares). The amount of any such liability is uncertain and as such, an accrual for any potential loss has not been made. The Company believes that any claims brought against it would not result in a material impact to the Company’s financial position or results of operations. The Company has not accrued a loss for a potential claim associated with this matter as it is unable to estimate any at this time.

In connection with the Company’s reincorporation from Nevada to Delaware in 2017, the Company (as a Delaware corporation) untimely filed a post-effective amendment to adopt a Form S-8 registration statement that the Company filed (as a Nevada corporation) to register the shares underlying the Company’s 2011 Equity Incentive Plan. Before the Company filed the required post-effective amendment, options to purchase 200,000 shares were exercised under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan. The effect of the delayed post-effective amendment filing on the 200,000 option shares is uncertain, but the issuance and sale of the shares may not have been in compliance with the Form S-8 registration statement. The existence of any liability to the Company, and the amount of any such liability to the Company, as a result of the issuance of the 200,000 shares is uncertain. Accordingly, no accrual for a potential claim has been made by the Company in its financial statements.

The Company may be involved, from time to time, in legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company accrues amounts, to the extent they can be reasonably estimated, that it believes are adequate to address any liabilities related to legal proceedings and other loss contingencies that it believes will result in a probable loss. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingency involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matter will be resolved in a manner that would have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.