Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	7. Litigation Kleba Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On January 2, 2013, Glenn Kleba, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for the State of Tennessee, Knox County (the “Court”), against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Eric A. Wachter, and Peter R. Culpepper (collectively, the “Executives”), Stuart Fuchs, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, together with the Executives, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”). The Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit alleged (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) waste of corporate assets, and (iii) unjust enrichment, all three claims based on Mr. Kleba’s allegations that the defendants authorized and/or accepted stock option awards in violation of the terms of the Company’s 2002 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) by issuing stock options in excess of the amounts authorized under the Plan and delegated to defendant H. Craig Dees the sole authority to grant himself and the other Executives cash bonuses that Mr. Kleba alleges to be excessive. In April 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special litigation committee to investigate the allegations of the Shareholder Derivative Complaint and make a determination as to how the matter should be resolved. The special litigation committee conducted its investigation, and proceedings in the case were stayed pending the conclusion of the committee’s investigation. The Company has established a reserve of $100,000 for potential liabilities because such is the amount of the self-insured retention of its insurance policy. On February 21, 2014, an Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed which added Don B. Dale (“Mr. Dale”) as a plaintiff. On March 6, 2014, the Company filed a Joint Notice of Settlement (the “Notice of Settlement”) in the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. In addition to the Company, the parties to the Notice of Settlement are Mr. Kleba, Mr. Dale and the Individual Defendants. On June 6, 2014, the Company, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Settlement”) in the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. In addition to the Company and the Individual Defendants, Plaintiffs Glenn Kleba and Don B. Dale are parties to the Settlement. By entering into the Settlement, the settling parties have resolved the derivative claims to their mutual satisfaction. The Individual Defendants have not admitted the validity of any claims or allegations and the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or allegations lack merit or foundation. Under the terms of the Settlement, (i) the Executives each agreed (A) to re-pay to the Company $2.24 Million of the cash bonuses they each received in 2010 and 2011, which amount equals 70% of such bonuses or an estimate of the after-tax net proceeds to each Executive; provided, however, that subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement, the Executives are entitled to a 2:1 credit such that total actual repayment may be $1.12 Million each; (B) to reimburse the Company for 25% of the actual costs, net of recovery from any other source, incurred by the Company as a result of the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit; and (C) to grant to the Company a first priority security interest in 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock owned by each such Executive to serve as collateral for the amounts due to the Company under the Settlement; (ii) Drs. Dees and Scott and Mr. Culpepper agreed to retain incentive stock options for 100,000 shares but shall forfeit 50% of the nonqualified stock options granted to each such Executive in both 2010 and 2011. The Settlement also requires that each of the Executives enter into new employment agreements with the Company, which were entered into on April 28, 2014, and that the Company adhere to certain corporate governance principles and processes in the future. Under the Settlement, Messrs. Fuchs and Smith and Dr. McMasters have each agreed to pay the Company $25,000 in cash, subject to reduction by such amount that the Company’s insurance carrier pays to the Company on behalf of such defendant pursuant to such defendant’s directors and officers liability insurance policy. The Settlement also provides for an award to plaintiffs’ counsel of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with their role in this litigation, subject to Court approval. On July 24, 2014, the Court approved the terms of the proposed Settlement and awarded $911,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with their role in the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. The payment to plaintiff’s counsel was made by the Company during October 2014 and is recorded as other current assets at December 31, 2014. The Company is seeking reimbursement of the full amount from insurance and if the full amount is not received from insurance, the amount remaining will be reimbursed to the Company from the Individual Defendants. On October 3, 2014, the Settlement was effective and stock options for Drs. Dees and Scott and Mr. Culpepper were rescinded, totaling 2,800,000. $533,333 was repaid by the Executives as of June 30, 2015. The cash settlement amounts will continue to be repaid to the Company over a period of five years with the first payment due in total by October 2015 and the final payment is expected to be received by October 3, 2019. Class Action Lawsuits On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Farrah Case”), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Chaney Case”), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Dauphinee Case”) (the plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), each filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the “Defendants”) alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the Company’s application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy Designation (“BTD”) of the Company’s melanoma drug, PV-10, in the Spring of 2014, and the FDA’s subsequent denial of the Company’s application for BTD. The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in these complaints. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements as the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential loss is not estimable at this time. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively and, as consolidated, the “Securities Litigation”) and transferred the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “Court”) entered an order appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order. On April 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”) in the Class Action Case, alleging that Provectus and the other individual defendants made knowingly false representations about the likelihood that PV-10 would be approved as a candidate for BTD, and that such representations caused injury to Lead Plaintiff and other shareholders. The Consolidated Complaint also added Eric Wachter as a named defendant. On June 5, 2015, Provectus filed its Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”). On July 20, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the “Response”). Pursuant to order of the Court, Provectus must reply to the Response no later than August 19, 2015. The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in the Consolidated Complaint. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome of the Class Action Case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements as the outcome of the Class Action Case cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential loss is not estimable at this time. Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On June 4, 2014, Karla Hurtado, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Jan E. Koe, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”). The Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit alleges (i) breach of fiduciary duties and (ii) abuse of control, both claims based on Ms. Hurtado’s allegations that the Individual Defendants (a) recklessly permitted the Company to make false and misleading disclosures and (b) failed to implement adequate controls and procedures to ensure the accuracy of the Company’s disclosures. On July 25, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered an order transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee and, in light of the pending Securities Litigation, relieving the Individual Defendants from responding to the complaint in the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit pending further order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On April 9, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee entered an Order staying the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to be filed by Provectus in the Class Action Case. As a nominal defendant, no relief is sought against the Company itself in the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On October 24, 2014, Paul Montiminy brought a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”) against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Jan E. Koe, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”). Like the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, the Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit alleges (i) breach of fiduciary duties and (ii) gross mismanagement of the assets and business of the Company, both claims based on Mr. Montiminy’s allegations that the Individual Defendants recklessly permitted the Company to make certain false and misleading disclosures regarding the likelihood that the Company’s melanoma drug, PV-10, would qualify for BTD. As a practical matter, the factual allegations and requested relief in the Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit are substantively the same as those in the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. On December 29, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “Court”) entered an order consolidating the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit and the Montiminy Derivative Lawsuit. On February 25, 2015, the parties submitted a proposed agreed order staying the Hurtado and Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits until the Court issues a ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint to be filed in the Securities Litigation. On April 9, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee entered an Order staying the Hurtado and Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to be filed by Provectus in the Class Action Case. As in the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, no relief is sought against the Company itself; the action is against the Individual Defendants only. Foley Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On October 28, 2014, Chris Foley, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Jan E. Koe, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Foley Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”). The Foley Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit was brought by the same attorney as the Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, Paul Kent Bramlett of Bramlett Law Offices. Other than the difference in the named plaintiff, the complaints in the Foley Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit and the Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit are identical. On March 6, 2015, the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee entered an Order staying the Foley Derivative Lawsuit until the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issues a ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint to be filed in the Class Action Case. As in the Hurtado and Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits, no relief is sought against the Company itself; the action is against the Individual Defendants only. Donato Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On June 24, 2015, Sean Donato, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Jan. E. Koe, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Donato Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”). Other than the difference in the named plaintiff, the Donato Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit is virtually identical to the other pending derivative lawsuits. All of these cases assert claims against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties based on the Company’s purportedly misleading statements about the likelihood that PV-10 would be approved by the FDA. We are not in a position at this time to give you an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss to the Company.

7. Litigation

Kleba Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On January 2, 2013, Glenn Kleba, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for the State of Tennessee, Knox County (the “Court”), against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Eric A. Wachter, and Peter R. Culpepper (collectively, the “Executives”), Stuart Fuchs, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, together with the Executives, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”). The Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit alleged (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) waste of corporate assets, and (iii) unjust enrichment, all three claims based on Mr. Kleba’s allegations that the defendants authorized and/or accepted stock option awards in violation of the terms of the Company’s 2002 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) by issuing stock options in excess of the amounts authorized under the Plan and delegated to defendant H. Craig Dees the sole authority to grant himself and the other Executives cash bonuses that Mr. Kleba alleges to be excessive.

In April 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special litigation committee to investigate the allegations of the Shareholder Derivative Complaint and make a determination as to how the matter should be resolved. The special litigation committee conducted its investigation, and proceedings in the case were stayed pending the conclusion of the committee’s investigation. The Company has established a reserve of $100,000 for potential liabilities because such is the amount of the self-insured retention of its insurance policy. On February 21, 2014, an Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed which added Don B. Dale (“Mr. Dale”) as a plaintiff.

On March 6, 2014, the Company filed a Joint Notice of Settlement (the “Notice of Settlement”) in the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. In addition to the Company, the parties to the Notice of Settlement are Mr. Kleba, Mr. Dale and the Individual Defendants.

On June 6, 2014, the Company, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Settlement”) in the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. In addition to the Company and the Individual Defendants, Plaintiffs Glenn Kleba and Don B. Dale are parties to the Settlement.

By entering into the Settlement, the settling parties have resolved the derivative claims to their mutual satisfaction. The Individual Defendants have not admitted the validity of any claims or allegations and the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or allegations lack merit or foundation. Under the terms of the Settlement, (i) the Executives each agreed (A) to re-pay to the Company $2.24 Million of the cash bonuses they each received in 2010 and 2011, which amount equals 70% of such bonuses or an estimate of the after-tax net proceeds to each Executive; provided, however, that subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement, the Executives are entitled to a 2:1 credit such that total actual repayment may be $1.12 Million each; (B) to reimburse the Company for 25% of the actual costs, net of recovery from any other source, incurred by the Company as a result of the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit; and (C) to grant to the Company a first priority security interest in 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock owned by each such Executive to serve as collateral for the amounts due to the Company under the Settlement; (ii) Drs. Dees and Scott and Mr. Culpepper agreed to retain incentive stock options for 100,000 shares but shall forfeit 50% of the nonqualified stock options granted to each such Executive in both 2010 and 2011. The Settlement also requires that each of the Executives enter into new employment agreements with the Company, which were entered into on April 28, 2014, and that the Company adhere to certain corporate governance principles and processes in the future. Under the Settlement, Messrs. Fuchs and Smith and Dr. McMasters have each agreed to pay the Company $25,000 in cash, subject to reduction by such amount that the Company’s insurance carrier pays to the Company on behalf of such defendant pursuant to such defendant’s directors and officers liability insurance policy. The Settlement also provides for an award to plaintiffs’ counsel of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with their role in this litigation, subject to Court approval.

On July 24, 2014, the Court approved the terms of the proposed Settlement and awarded $911,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with their role in the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. The payment to plaintiff’s counsel was made by the Company during October 2014 and is recorded as other current assets at December 31, 2014. The Company is seeking reimbursement of the full amount from insurance and if the full amount is not received from insurance, the amount remaining will be reimbursed to the Company from the Individual Defendants.

On October 3, 2014, the Settlement was effective and stock options for Drs. Dees and Scott and Mr. Culpepper were rescinded, totaling 2,800,000. $533,333 was repaid by the Executives as of June 30, 2015. The cash settlement amounts will continue to be repaid to the Company over a period of five years with the first payment due in total by October 2015 and the final payment is expected to be received by October 3, 2019.

Class Action Lawsuits

On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Farrah Case”), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Chaney Case”), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Dauphinee Case”) (the plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), each filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the “Defendants”) alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the Company’s application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy Designation (“BTD”) of the Company’s melanoma drug, PV-10, in the Spring of 2014, and the FDA’s subsequent denial of the Company’s application for BTD. The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in these complaints. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements as the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential loss is not estimable at this time.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively and, as consolidated, the “Securities Litigation”) and transferred the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “Court”) entered an order appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order.

On April 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”) in the Class Action Case, alleging that Provectus and the other individual defendants made knowingly false representations about the likelihood that PV-10 would be approved as a candidate for BTD, and that such representations caused injury to Lead Plaintiff and other shareholders. The Consolidated Complaint also added Eric Wachter as a named defendant.

On June 5, 2015, Provectus filed its Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”). On July 20, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the “Response”). Pursuant to order of the Court, Provectus must reply to the Response no later than August 19, 2015.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in the Consolidated Complaint. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome of the Class Action Case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements as the outcome of the Class Action Case cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential loss is not estimable at this time.

Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On June 4, 2014, Karla Hurtado, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Jan E. Koe, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”). The Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit alleges (i) breach of fiduciary duties and (ii) abuse of control, both claims based on Ms. Hurtado’s allegations that the Individual Defendants (a) recklessly permitted the Company to make false and misleading disclosures and (b) failed to implement adequate controls and procedures to ensure the accuracy of the Company’s disclosures.

On July 25, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered an order transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee and, in light of the pending Securities Litigation, relieving the Individual Defendants from responding to the complaint in the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit pending further order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On April 9, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee entered an Order staying the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to be filed by Provectus in the Class Action Case.

As a nominal defendant, no relief is sought against the Company itself in the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit.

Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On October 24, 2014, Paul Montiminy brought a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”) against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Jan E. Koe, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”). Like the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, the Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit alleges (i) breach of fiduciary duties and (ii) gross mismanagement of the assets and business of the Company, both claims based on Mr. Montiminy’s allegations that the Individual Defendants recklessly permitted the Company to make certain false and misleading disclosures regarding the likelihood that the Company’s melanoma drug, PV-10, would qualify for BTD. As a practical matter, the factual allegations and requested relief in the Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit are substantively the same as those in the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit.

On December 29, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “Court”) entered an order consolidating the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit and the Montiminy Derivative Lawsuit. On February 25, 2015, the parties submitted a proposed agreed order staying the Hurtado and Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits until the Court issues a ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint to be filed in the Securities Litigation. On April 9, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee entered an Order staying the Hurtado and Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to be filed by Provectus in the Class Action Case.

As in the Hurtado Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, no relief is sought against the Company itself; the action is against the Individual Defendants only.

Foley Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On October 28, 2014, Chris Foley, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Jan E. Koe, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Foley Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”). The Foley Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit was brought by the same attorney as the Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, Paul Kent Bramlett of Bramlett Law Offices. Other than the difference in the named plaintiff, the complaints in the Foley Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit and the Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit are identical. On March 6, 2015, the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee entered an Order staying the Foley Derivative Lawsuit until the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issues a ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint to be filed in the Class Action Case.

As in the Hurtado and Montiminy Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits, no relief is sought against the Company itself; the action is against the Individual Defendants only.

Donato Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On June 24, 2015, Sean Donato, derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee against H. Craig Dees, Timothy C. Scott, Jan. E. Koe, Kelly M. McMasters, and Alfred E. Smith, IV (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), and against the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Donato Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”). Other than the difference in the named plaintiff, the Donato Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit is virtually identical to the other pending derivative lawsuits. All of these cases assert claims against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties based on the Company’s purportedly misleading statements about the likelihood that PV-10 would be approved by the FDA. We are not in a position at this time to give you an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss to the Company.