COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 10 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

On January 23, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement pursuant to the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, provisionally certified a settlement class of shareholders, and directed plaintiffs' counsel to provide notice to that class. The Court held a Settlement Hearing May 8, 2017 to consider any objections to the Settlement that might be raised by settlement class members, to consider plaintiffs’ counsel's application for an award of fees and costs, and to determine whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation of Settlement should be entered, dismissing the case with prejudice. On May 8, 2017, this Court granted final approval to the settlement of the securities class action brought by Lead Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On February 9, 2018, the Court authorized distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and approved the proposed modified plan of allocation.

On May 16, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint entitled LiPoChing, Derivatively and on Behalf of AudioEye, Inc., v. Bradley, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. As a derivative complaint, the plaintiff-shareholder purported to act on behalf of the Company against the Named Individuals. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserted causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty and others, arising from the Company’s restatement of its financial results for the first three quarters of 2014. The complaint sought, among other relief, compensatory damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees. In October 2016, the Company and Named Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In response, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently submitted a demand to the Company’s Board of Directors, to investigate the circumstances surrounding restatement of its financial results for the first three quarters of 2014. On June 22, 2018, the matter was resolved to the parties’ satisfaction. The resolution of the matter did not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

On July 26, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint entitled Denese M. Hebert, derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant AudioEye, Inc., v. Bradley, et al., was filed in the State of Arizona Superior Court for Pima County. The complaint generally asserted causes of action related to the Company’s restatement of its financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters of 2014. As a derivative complaint, the plaintiff-shareholder purported to act on behalf of the Company against the Named Individuals. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on May 8, 2017, while also denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint. As in the above matter, after this matter was dismissed Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently submitted a demand to the Company’s Board of Directors, to investigate the circumstances surrounding restatement of its financial results for the first three quarters of 2014. On June 22, 2018, the matter was resolved to the parties’ satisfaction. The resolution of the matter did not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

We may become involved in various other routine disputes and allegations incidental to our business operations. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate disposition of these matters, our management believes that the resolution of any such matters, should they arise, is not likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.