Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 9. Commitments and Contingencies *(a)* *Purchase Commitments* As of December 31, 2022, the Company had approximately $7.9 million of non-cancelable purchase commitments, principally for contract manufacturing and clinical services and leasehold improvements which are expected to be paid within the next year. In addition, the Company has operating lease commitments as detailed in Note 8 and a further commitment for an operating lease with unpaid rental payments totaling $0.4 million payable by March 31, 2029, which has been executed but has not yet commenced, for which we expect to spend a net total of approximately $2.3 million on leasehold improvements, of which $1.1 million has already been expended and $1.2 million is included within non-cancelable purchase commitments, which will be recorded as right-of-use assets when the lease commences. *(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 certain officers and directors which provide, among other things, that the Company will indemnify and advance expenses incurred in connection with certain actions, suits or proceedings to such officer or director, under the circumstances and to the extent provided for therein, for expenses, damages, judgments, fines and settlements he or she may be required to pay in actions or proceedings which he or she is or may be made a party by reason of his or her position as a director, officer or other agent of the Company, and otherwise to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and the Company’s Bylaws. 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 indeterminable 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. A third amended complaint was filed on June 11, 2021. The third amended complaint named 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 third amended complaint also asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Armistice Capital, LLC (“Armistice”). The third amended complaint challenged certain stock options granted to certain of the Company’s officers and directors in June 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 purported to bring the lawsuit derivatively on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company and named the Company as a “nominal defendant” against which no damages were sought. On August 31, 2021, the Company and certain of its directors (the “Vaxart Defendants”), as well as all other defendants, filed demurrers to the third amended complaint. By Order dated November 17, 2022, the court sustained the defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend, and the time for plaintiffs to appeal has since lapsed. 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 action, 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. On December 9, 2020, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’ counsel. On January 29, 2021, 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, and on August 9, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a corrected first amended consolidated complaint. The first amended consolidated complaint, as corrected, named certain of Vaxart’s current and former executive officers and directors, as well as Armistice, as defendants. It claimed 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, as corrected, alleged 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 sought certification as a class action for similarly situated shareholders and sought, 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. By Order dated December 22, 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss by Armistice with leave to amend and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On July 27, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a notice announcing that they had reached a partial settlement (the “Partial Settlement”) to resolve all claims against the Company and its current or former officers and/or directors in their capacity as officers and/or directors of the Company (the “Settling Defendants”). Pursuant to the Partial Settlement, the Company agreed to a settlement amount of $12.0 million with $2.0 million to be paid by the Company and the remainder to be paid by the Company’s insurers. On November 2, 2022, the Company paid the $2.0 million settlement amount with respect to the Putative Class Action pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement reached in that case. On November 14, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint that purported to include new allegations to support claims against Armistice. By Orders dated January 25, 2023, the court approved the Partial Settlement and entered judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted in the Putative Class Action against the Settling Defendants. 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”). Because this complaint is nearly identical to an earlier version of a complaint filed in the Putative Class Action, the Opt-Out Action has been stayed while the Putative Class Action is pending.

Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 9. Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Purchase Commitments

As of December 31, 2022, the Company had approximately $7.9 million of non-cancelable purchase commitments, principally for contract manufacturing and clinical services and leasehold improvements which are expected to be paid within the next year. In addition, the Company has operating lease commitments as detailed in Note 8 and a further commitment for an operating lease with unpaid rental payments totaling $0.4 million payable by March 31, 2029, which has been executed but has not yet commenced, for which we expect to spend a net total of approximately $2.3 million on leasehold improvements, of which $1.1 million has already been expended and $1.2 million is included within non-cancelable purchase commitments, which will be recorded as right-of-use assets when the lease commences.

(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 certain officers and directors which provide, among other things, that the Company will indemnify and advance expenses incurred in connection with certain actions, suits or proceedings to such officer or director, under the circumstances and to the extent provided for therein, for expenses, damages, judgments, fines and settlements he or she may be required to pay in actions or proceedings which he or she is or may be made a party by reason of his or her position as a director, officer or other agent of the Company, and otherwise to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and the Company’s Bylaws. 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 indeterminable 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. A third amended complaint was filed on June 11, 2021. The third amended complaint named 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 third amended complaint also asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Armistice Capital, LLC (“Armistice”). The third amended complaint challenged certain stock options granted to certain of the Company’s officers and directors in June 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 purported to bring the lawsuit derivatively on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company and named the Company as a “nominal defendant” against which no damages were sought. On August 31, 2021, the Company and certain of its directors (the “Vaxart Defendants”), as well as all other defendants, filed demurrers to the third amended complaint. By Order dated November 17, 2022, the court sustained the defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend, and the time for plaintiffs to appeal has since lapsed.

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 action, 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. On December 9, 2020, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’ counsel.

On January 29, 2021, 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, and on August 9, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a corrected first amended consolidated complaint. The first amended consolidated complaint, as corrected, named certain of Vaxart’s current and former executive officers and directors, as well as Armistice, as defendants. It claimed 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, as corrected, alleged 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 sought certification as a class action for similarly situated shareholders and sought, 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. By Order dated December 22, 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss by Armistice with leave to amend and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On July 27, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a notice announcing that they had reached a partial settlement (the “Partial Settlement”) to resolve all claims against the Company and its current or former officers and/or directors in their capacity as officers and/or directors of the Company (the “Settling Defendants”). Pursuant to the Partial Settlement, the Company agreed to a settlement amount of $12.0 million with $2.0 million to be paid by the Company and the remainder to be paid by the Company’s insurers. On November 2, 2022, the Company paid the $2.0 million settlement amount with respect to the Putative Class Action pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement reached in that case. On November 14, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint that purported to include new allegations to support claims against Armistice. By Orders dated January 25, 2023, the court approved the Partial Settlement and entered judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted in the Putative Class Action against the Settling Defendants.

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”). Because this complaint is nearly identical to an earlier version of a complaint filed in the Putative Class Action, the Opt-Out Action has been stayed while the Putative Class Action is pending.