Note 8 - Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Notes to Financial Statements

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 8. Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Purchase Commitments

As of June 30, 2021, the Company had approximately $28.9 million of non-cancelable purchase commitments, principally for contract manufacturing and clinical services which are expected to be paid within the next thirty months. In addition, the Company has operating lease commitments as detailed in Note 7.

(b) Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into agreements that may include indemnification provisions. Pursuant to such agreements, the Company may indemnify, hold harmless and defend indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party. Some of the provisions will limit losses to those arising from third-party actions. In some cases, the indemnification will continue after the termination of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these provisions is not determinable. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware corporate law. The Company currently has directors’ and officers’ insurance.

(c) Litigation

From time to time the Company may be involved in legal proceedings arising in connection with its business. Based on information currently available, the Company believes that the amount, or range, of reasonably possible losses in connection with any pending actions against it in excess of established reserves, in the aggregate, is not material to its consolidated financial condition or cash flows. However, any current or future dispute resolution or legal proceeding, regardless of the merits of any such proceeding, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources that are needed to run the Company successfully, and could have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition and results of operations.

On August 4, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, entitled Godfrey v. Latour, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 4, 2020, and the case was re-named Ennis v. Latour, et al. A second amended complaint was filed on November 25, 2020. On March 15, 2021, the court sustained demurrers to the second amended complaint, without prejudice to file a further amended complaint. A third amended complaint was filed on June 11, 2021. The third amended complaint names certain current and former Vaxart directors as defendants, asserting claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste and seeking, among other things, an award of unspecified damages, certain equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Armistice Capital, LLC (“Armistice”). The complaint challenges certain stock options granted to certain of the Company’s officers and directors between March 24, 2020 and June 15, 2020; certain alleged statements and omissions made in the Company’s April 24, 2020 proxy statement; and certain amendments to two warrants held by Armistice, as disclosed on June 8, 2020. The third amended complaint purports to bring the lawsuit derivatively on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company and names the Company as a “nominal defendant” against which no damages are sought. The Company intends to file another demurrer.

On September 8, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, entitled Galjour v. Floroiu, et al. On October 20, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative and class action complaint, entitled Jaquith v. Vaxart, Inc., was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On November 12, 2020, the two actions were consolidated under the caption In re Vaxart, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and the complaint filed in the Jaquith action was deemed the operative pleading. The operative complaint names as defendants certain current and former Vaxart directors, asserting claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeking, among other things, an award of unspecified damages, certain equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The complaint also asserts claims for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty or alternatively aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Armistice. The complaint challenges certain stock options granted to certain of the Company’s officers and directors between March 24, 2020 and June 15, 2020; certain alleged statements and omissions made in the Company’s April 24, 2020 proxy statement; and certain amendments to two warrants held by Armistice, as disclosed on June 8, 2020. The complaint purports to bring all but one of the claims derivatively on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company. It also purports to bring one claim, for breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged statements and omissions in the Company’s April 24, 2020 proxy statement, directly on behalf of a class of Vaxart stockholders. The complaint names the Company as a “nominal defendant” against which no damages are sought. On January 4, 2021, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. These motions are pending.

In August and September 2020, two substantially similar securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The first, titled Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on August 24, 2020. The second action, titled Hovhannisyan v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on September 1, 2020 (together, the “Putative Class Action”). By Order dated September 17, 2020, the two actions were deemed related; lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’ counsel were subsequently appointed on December 9, 2020. On January 29, 2021, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. On July 8, 2021, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On May 14, 2021, the court granted lead plaintiffs’ request to amend the consolidated amended complaint and denied defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot. On June 10, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint. The first amended consolidated complaint names as defendants certain of Vaxart’s current and former executive officers and directors, as well as Armistice. It claims three violations of federal civil securities laws; violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, as against the Company and all individual defendants; violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as against Armistice and all individual defendants; and violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Armistice. The first amended consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated securities laws by misstating and/or omitting information regarding the Company’s development of a norovirus vaccine, the vaccine manufacturing capabilities of a business counterparty, and the Company’s involvement with Operation Warp Speed (“OWS”); and by engaging in a scheme to inflate Vaxart’s stock price. The first amended consolidated complaint seeks to be certified as a class action for similarly situated shareholders and seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 8, 2021, all defendants moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. The motion is pending.

On October 23, 2020, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Roth v. Armistice Capital LLC, et al. The complaint names Armistice and certain Armistice-related parties as defendants, asserting a violation of Exchange Act Section 16(b) and seeking the disgorgement of short-swing profits. The complaint purports to bring the lawsuit on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company and names the Company as a “nominal defendant” for whose benefit damages are sought.

On January 8, 2021, a purported shareholder, Phillip Chan, commenced a pro se lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California titled Chan v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. (the “Opt-Out Action”). This complaint is nearly identical to an earlier version of a complaint filed in the Putative Class Actions, naming the same defendants, certain of Vaxart’s current and former executive officers and directors and Armistice, and asserting identical legal claims relating to the same factual allegations. The complaint asserts two violations of federal civil securities laws, violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 as against all defendants, and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as against the individual defendants. The Opt-Out Action alleges that the defendants violated securities laws by misstating and omitting information regarding the Company’s development of a Covid-19 vaccine as well as its OWS involvement to deceive the investing public and inflate Vaxart’s stock price. The Opt-Out Action has been stayed pending resolution of the Putative Class Actions.

On February 4, 2021, a purported shareholder, Stephen Barker, commenced a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery titled Barker v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. The complaint named as defendants the Company and its then-current board of directors. The complaint asserted a single claim seeking a declaration that one of the Company’s bylaws, which required a supermajority vote to remove a Company director from office, violated Delaware General Corporate Law Section 141(k). On May 14, 2021, the Court entered an Order voluntarily dismissing the action as moot.

On March 5, 2021, a purported shareholder, Kathleen Sanetel, served a demand letter on the Company’s board of directors demanding that it investigate and commence appropriate legal action against certain members of the board of directors and/or executive officers, and Armistice to remedy purportedly wrongful conduct beginning in April 2020. On or about June 2, 2021, another purported shareholder, Jerry Besa, served a substantially identical demand letter. The specific allegations and alleged wrongful conduct set forth in the demand letter are, in all material respects, substantially similar to the allegations and claims made in the consolidated amended complaint in the Putative Class Actions. After receipt of the Sanetel demand letter, the Board appointed a committee of the Board (the “Demand Committee”) and delegated to the Demand Committee the authority to investigate the matters referenced in the demand letter and determine action(s), if any, to be taken by the Company in response to the demand.

The Company’s legal costs incurred in its defense against these claims are expensed as incurred.