Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)

Contingencies

v3.21.1
Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies Contingencies
On November 13, 2020, a purported stockholder of CGI filed a complaint against CGI, the chief executive officer of CGI and the directors of CGI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled, Scott Sawin v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. The complaint (the “Sawin Complaint”) alleges that CGI’s Registration Statement on Form S-4, as filed with the SEC on October 16, 2020 related to the merger (the “Prior Registration Statement”), omitted to disclose certain material information allegedly necessary to make statements made in the Prior Registration Statement not misleading and/or false, in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and alleges breach of fiduciary duty of candor/disclosure. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, enjoining the merger until the defendants to the applicable lawsuit disclose the alleged omitted material information, and costs, among other remedies.

On November 19, 2020, a purported stockholder of CGI filed a complaint against CGI and the directors of CGI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled, Carlos Juan Pastrana v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. On November 19, 2020, a purported stockholder of CGI filed a complaint against CGI and the directors of CGI in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled, Joshua Dunn v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. On November 23, 2020, a purported stockholder of CGI filed a complaint against CGI and the directors of CGI in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled, Matthew Haller v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. On November 25, 2020, a purported stockholder of CGI filed a complaint against CGI and the directors of CGI in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled, Steve Prentiss v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. On December 1, 2020, a purported stockholder of CGI filed a complaint against CGI and the directors of CGI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled, Virginia Weiderman v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. On December 18, 2020, a purported stockholder of CGI filed a complaint against CGI and the directors of CGI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled, Jason Kauffman v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. On January 27, 2021, a purported stockholder of CGI filed a complaint against CGI and the directors of CGI in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled, Joseph Sheridan v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. Each of the foregoing seven complaints allege facts and seek relief substantially similar to the Sawin Complaint.

CGI believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuits described above are without merit and intends to vigorously defend CGI, CGI Acquisition, Inc. and the director and officer defendants against these claims, as applicable, however, there can be no assurance that the defendants will prevail in such lawsuits. CGI is not able to estimate any possible loss from these litigations at this time. It is possible that additional lawsuits may be filed in connection with the merger.

In November 2020, vivoPharm Pty Ltd received a letter from counsel for a customer of vivoPharm alleging entitlement to a refund of prepayments made under a master services agreement in the sum of approximately $306 thousand. Counsel for vivoPharm responded and denied any liability. In February 2021 counsel for the customer repeated its claim and stated its intent to commence litigation if the matter were not resolved. Counsel for vivoPharm responded by repeating its denial of any liability but offering to pay $60 thousand to resolve the matter. No litigation has been commenced to date.