PVCT Provectus Biopharmaceuticals - Culpepper - PVCT Provectus Biopharmaceuticals - InvestorVillage
PVCT Provectus Biopharmaceuticals
This is a semi-private group. You are free to browse messages, but you must be a member of this group to post messages. Join This Group

Group: PVCT Provectus Biopharmaceuticals   /  Message Board  /  Read Message


Rec'd By
Authored By
Minimum Recs
Previous Message  Next Message   Post Message   Post a Reply return to message boardtop of board
Msg  5777 of 5861  at  11/23/2020 1:24:47 PM  by


The following message was updated on 11/23/2020 1:24:47 PM.


  Below is from the Nov 2020 10Q where the saga of Pete Culpepper is summarized.  I've always wondered why Pete is dragging this out in the courts and incurring all the legal costs associated with the courts/lawyers.  Lets face it, his appeal to and ability to get a case like this heard at the US Supreme Court is not going to happen.  I can only surmise the following.
1.  Maybe he doesn't have the $2.24M he owes Provectus and is hoping for a Hail Mary with the courts.
2.  In May 2016 in a S-1, it is listed that he owns 3,474,998 shares which at todays prices is only worth roughly $243K.  Is he waiting for the stock price to rise so he can participate in the capital gains and then be able to pay off the settlement? 
I can imagine both assumptions are possibly true.  Can anybody else hazard a guess?  

"On December 27, 2016, the then-Board of Directors (the “then-Board”) unanimously voted to terminate then-interim Chief Executive Officer, then-Chief Operating Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer, Peter Culpepper (“Culpepper”), effective immediately, from all positions he held with the Company and each of its subsidiaries, “for cause,” in accordance with the terms of the Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement entered into by Culpepper and the Company on April 28, 2014 (the “Culpepper Employment Agreement”), based on the results of the investigation conducted by the Audit Committee of the then-Board regarding improper expense reimbursements to Culpepper.

The Company took the position that under the terms of the Culpepper Employment Agreement, Culpepper is owed no severance payments as a result of his termination “for cause” as that term is defined in the Culpepper Employment Agreement. Furthermore, Culpepper is no longer entitled to the 2:1 credit under the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release in the Kleba Derivative Lawsuit Settlement (the “Derivative Lawsuit Settlement”) such that the total $2,240,000 owed by Culpepper pursuant to the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement plus Culpepper’s proportionate share of the litigation cost in the amount of $227,750, less the amount that he repaid as of December 31, 2016, is immediately due and payable. The Company sent Culpepper a notice of default in January 2017 for the total amount he owes the Company and is in the process of pursuing these claims in accordance with the alternative dispute resolution provision of the Culpepper Employment Agreement. The Company has established a reserve of $2,104,543 as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, which amount represents the amount the Company currently believes Culpepper owes to the Company under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement (excluding the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing the terms of the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement), while the Company pursues collection of this amount.

Culpepper disputed that he was terminated “for cause” under the Culpepper Employment Agreement. On June 28, 2017, pursuant to the alternative dispute resolution provisions of that agreement, the Company and Culpepper participated in a mediation of their dispute. Having reached no resolution during the mediation, the parties participated in arbitration under the commercial rules of the American Arbitration Association, arbitrating Culpepper’s claim against the Company for severance and the Company’s claims against Culpepper for improper expense reimbursements and amounts Culpepper owed the Company under the Derivative Lawsuit Settlement. On September 12, 2018, the arbitrator issued his final award in favor of the Company.


On October 4, 2018, the Company filed a petition with the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee to confirm the arbitration award. On January 23, 2019, the Chancery Court entered an order confirming the arbitrator’s award. On February 20, 2019, Culpepper filed a motion to alter or amend the Chancery Court’s judgment. On March 22, 2019, the Chancery Court upheld the arbitration award in favor of the Company.

On April 16, 2019, Culpepper filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals regarding the Chancery Court’s judgment. The Company and Culpepper submitted their respective court of appeal briefs on November 12, 2019 and December 3, 2019, respectively. Oral arguments were held on January 7, 2020. On April 14, 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Chancery Court’s judgment and awarded court costs to the Company.

On June 16, 2020, Culpepper filed an application to the Supreme Court of Tennessee for permission to appeal the Court of Appeals’ final decision. On June 30, 2020, the Company filed an answer to the Supreme Court in opposition to Culpepper’s application for permission to appeal. On August 5, 2020, the Supreme Court denied Culpepper’s application. On November 5, 2020, Culpepper filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which has not been acted upon at this time."


     e-mail to a friend      printer-friendly     add to library      
| More
Recs: 4     Views: 0
Previous Message  Next Message   Post Message   Post a Reply return to message boardtop of board

Msg # Subject Author Recs Date Posted
5778 Re: Culpepper leave_the_gun 1 11/23/2020 2:15:01 PM
5779 Re: Culpepper Take_The_Canolis 4 11/23/2020 7:04:32 PM

Financial Market Data provided by