Litigation and Settlements	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 15. Litigation and Settlements	From time to time we may become subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, we are currently involved in the following litigation which is not incidental to its business: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits. In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against Vertro and certain of its former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated. The consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as “control persons.” Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period, Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted material information. The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court’s prior orders dismissing certain claims. On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and reversed the court’s prior order on summary judgment. Vertro intends to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision. Derivative Stockholder Litigation. On July 25, 2005, a stockholder, Bruce Verduyn, filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Vertro in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against certain of Vertro’s directors and officers. This action is based on substantially the same facts alleged in the securities class action litigation described above. The complaint is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount. By agreement of the parties and by orders of the court, the case was stayed pending the resolution of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On July 10, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the stay of the litigation. On July 13, 2007, the court granted the stipulation to continue the stay and administratively closed the case pending notification by plaintiff’s counsel that the case is due to be reopened. Beth Tarczynski v. Inuvo, Inc. d/b/a Blog Tool Kit, Home Biz Ventures, LLC, and John Doe Defendants; Case No. 11-5111-CI-7, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. On June 10, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed alleging violations of the Florida statute prohibiting misleading advertisements, violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraud in the inducement, conspiracy to commit fraud, restitution/unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a statewide class and unspecified damages. Initial discovery has begun and Inuvo is vigorously defending the action. Express Revenue, Inc. v. Inuvo, Inc.; Case No. 10-44118-13, in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. On November 4, 2010, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging breach of oral contract, and violation of Florida Statute §68.065, among other claims, and seeking approximately $30,000 for allegedly unpaid commissions dating back to 2009. This matter is in its initial stages and Inuvo is defending the claim. ICR, LLC v. Inuvo, Inc.; Case No. 2010-10920-CI, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. On July 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment. This suit was settled in February 2012 for $8,500. State of Florida civil investigation re Inuvo, Inc. formerly d/b/a iLead Media, LLC d/b/a Home Biz Ventures, LLC, Case No. L09-3-1186. The State of Florida Attorney General’s office served a subpoena for documents on November 23, 2009, relating to the negative-option marketing business of former Inuvo subsidiary iLead Media, LLC. Inuvo responded to the subpoena and has continued to engage in informational exchanges with the Attorney General’s office. Corporate Square, LLC v. Think Partnership, Inc., Scott Mitchell, and Kristine Mitchell; Case No. 08-019230-CI-11, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. This complaint, filed on December 17, 2008, involves a claim by a former commercial landlord for alleged improper removal of an electric generator and for unpaid electricity expenses, amounting to approximately $60,000. The litigation has not been actively prosecuted, but the plaintiff recently served discovery requests seeking additional information. Inuvo is actively defending this action, and the co-defendants’ separate counsel is likewise defending the claim against the co-defendants. Microchannel Technologies Ltd. v. Think Partnership, Inc.; Case No. 08-08287-CI-20, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. This action, instituted in 2008, involves a claim for unpaid license fees by a UK publisher against Inuvo’s former UK subsidiary, Web Diversity Limited. This suit was settled in February 2012 for $7,000. Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc., E-Babylon, Inc., Hi-Speed Media, Inc., VC E-Commerce Solutions, Inc. Webclients, Inc. and Primary Ads, Inc., Case No. LC081000, in the Los Angeles Superior Court. On April 8, 2008, Hypertouch, Inc. filed an action against Inuvo and various other defendants in the same industry. The plaintiff is seeking recovery for purported violations of the California anti-“spam” statute and the California unfair competition statute, alleging that Inuvo sent 4,000 “spam” e-mails. This case was settled in January 2012 for $40,000. Oltean, et al. v. Think Partnership, Inc.; Edmonton, Alberta CA. On March 6, 2008, Kelly Oltean, Mike Baldock and Terry Schultz, former employees, filed a breach of employment claim against Inuvo in The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Edmonton, Canada, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal in the amount of $200,000 for each of Kelly Oltean and Terry Schultz and $187,500 for Mike Baldock. On March 6, 2008, the same three plaintiffs filed a similar statement of claim against Vintacom Acquisition Company, ULC, a subsidiary of Inuvo, again for wrongful dismissal and claiming the same damages. In October 2009, the two actions were consolidated. The case is in the discovery stage and Inuvo is vigorously defending the matter. Litigation Relating to the Merger. On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Vertro, its directors, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. on behalf of a putative class of Vertro shareholders (the “New York Action”). Two other complaints, also purportedly brought on behalf of the same class of shareholders, were filed on November 3 and 10, 2011, against these same defendants in Delaware Chancery Court and were ultimately consolidated by the Court (the “Delaware Action”). The plaintiffs in both the New York and the Delaware Actions alleged that Vertro’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding the merger with Inuvo and that Vertro, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs asked that the merger be enjoined and sought other unspecified monetary relief. Plaintiffs in the Delaware Action requested expedited discovery and related proceedings, but this request was denied by the Delaware Chancery Court on December 21, 2011. Defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, but before the briefing of that motion was complete the plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which was entered by the Delaware Court on March 20, 2012. The defendants in the New York Action also moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative to stay proceedings. The New York Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay on February 22, 2012 and, as a result of this ruling, the Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiff’s pending request for expedited discovery. We were a party to litigation with a former employee, for alleged breach of an employment agreement and other contract and tort claims. On April 7, 2011, we entered into an agreement to settle this litigation pursuant to which we agreed to pay an aggregate of $125,000, partially covered by insurance, and issue 50,000 shares of the our common stock valued at approximately $135,000 in full settlement of this litigation. We recorded a one-time charge of $235,000 related to this settlement and it is included in Litigation Settlements in the 2011 consolidated statements of operations. Scott Mitchell v. Inuvo. In January 2012 we were named as a defendant in an action styled Scott Mitchell versus Inuvo, Inc., f/k/a Think Partnership Inc. and Kowabunga! Inc., Does I-X , Case No. A-11-653956-C in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The complaint is related to our alleged failure to fully indemnify Mr. Mitchell, our former chief executive officer and member of the board of directors, pursuant to the terms of an indemnification agreement entered into in connection with his employment agreement, for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by him related to an investigation of insider trading brought against Mr. Mitchell by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleges that Mr. Mitchell has subsequently received correspondence from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Commission does not intend to make any recommendation for an enforcement action against him. Under the terms of Inuvo’s director’s and officer’s liability policy, its insurer has already paid approximately $588,000 of attorneys’ fees and costs to Mr. Mitchell’s counsel. Mr. Mitchell is seeking an additional approximately $265,000 of fees and costs which he allegedly owes to his counsel. The complaint alleges breach of contract/indemnity agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and failure to indemnify pursuant to our bylaws and the Nevada statutes. The complaint seeks a judgment against us for actual, consequential and special damages in excess of $10,000, advances of fees, costs and expenses, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, pre and post-judgment interest and a determination of his rights with respect to the indemnification agreement, our bylaws and the Nevada statutes. Given the amount of recovered funds received by Mr. Mitchell, and the position of Inuvo’s insurer that any reimbursement beyond what has already been paid is unwarranted, Inuvo intends to defend this lawsuit on the basis of the scope of the applicable indemnification and the reasonableness of the fees demanded.

Litigation and Settlements

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

From time to time we may become subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, we are currently involved in the following litigation which is not incidental to its business:

Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits. In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against Vertro and certain of its former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated. The consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as “control persons.” Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period, Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted material information. The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court’s prior orders dismissing certain claims. On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and reversed the court’s prior order on summary judgment. Vertro intends to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.

Derivative Stockholder Litigation. On July 25, 2005, a stockholder, Bruce Verduyn, filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Vertro in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against certain of Vertro’s directors and officers. This action is based on substantially the same facts alleged in the securities class action litigation described above. The complaint is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount. By agreement of the parties and by orders of the court, the case was stayed pending the resolution of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On July 10, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the stay of the litigation. On July 13, 2007, the court granted the stipulation to continue the stay and administratively closed the case pending notification by plaintiff’s counsel that the case is due to be reopened.

Beth Tarczynski v. Inuvo, Inc. d/b/a Blog Tool Kit, Home Biz Ventures, LLC, and John Doe Defendants; Case No. 11-5111-CI-7, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. On June 10, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed alleging violations of the Florida statute prohibiting misleading advertisements, violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraud in the inducement, conspiracy to commit fraud, restitution/unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a statewide class and unspecified damages. Initial discovery has begun and Inuvo is vigorously defending the action.

Express Revenue, Inc. v. Inuvo, Inc.; Case No. 10-44118-13, in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. On November 4, 2010, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging breach of oral contract, and violation of Florida Statute §68.065, among other claims, and seeking approximately $30,000 for allegedly unpaid commissions dating back to 2009. This matter is in its initial stages and Inuvo is defending the claim.

ICR, LLC v. Inuvo, Inc.; Case No. 2010-10920-CI, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. On July 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment. This suit was settled in February 2012 for $8,500. State of Florida civil investigation re Inuvo, Inc. formerly d/b/a iLead Media, LLC d/b/a Home Biz Ventures, LLC, Case No. L09-3-1186. The State of Florida Attorney General’s office served a subpoena for documents on November 23, 2009, relating to the negative-option marketing business of former Inuvo subsidiary iLead Media, LLC. Inuvo responded to the subpoena and has continued to engage in informational exchanges with the Attorney General’s office.

Corporate Square, LLC v. Think Partnership, Inc., Scott Mitchell, and Kristine Mitchell; Case No. 08-019230-CI-11, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. This complaint, filed on December 17, 2008, involves a claim by a former commercial landlord for alleged improper removal of an electric generator and for unpaid electricity expenses, amounting to approximately $60,000. The litigation has not been actively prosecuted, but the plaintiff recently served discovery requests seeking additional information. Inuvo is actively defending this action, and the co-defendants’ separate counsel is likewise defending the claim against the co-defendants.

Microchannel Technologies Ltd. v. Think Partnership, Inc.; Case No. 08-08287-CI-20, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. This action, instituted in 2008, involves a claim for unpaid license fees by a UK publisher against Inuvo’s former UK subsidiary, Web Diversity Limited. This suit was settled in February 2012 for $7,000.

Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc., E-Babylon, Inc., Hi-Speed Media, Inc., VC E-Commerce Solutions, Inc. Webclients, Inc. and Primary Ads, Inc., Case No. LC081000, in the Los Angeles Superior Court. On April 8, 2008, Hypertouch, Inc. filed an action against Inuvo and various other defendants in the same industry. The plaintiff is seeking recovery for purported violations of the California anti-“spam” statute and the California unfair competition statute, alleging that Inuvo sent 4,000 “spam” e-mails. This case was settled in January 2012 for $40,000.

Oltean, et al. v. Think Partnership, Inc.; Edmonton, Alberta CA. On March 6, 2008, Kelly Oltean, Mike Baldock and Terry Schultz, former employees, filed a breach of employment claim against Inuvo in The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Edmonton, Canada, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal in the amount of $200,000 for each of Kelly Oltean and Terry Schultz and $187,500 for Mike Baldock. On March 6, 2008, the same three plaintiffs filed a similar statement of claim against Vintacom Acquisition Company, ULC, a subsidiary of Inuvo, again for wrongful dismissal and claiming the same damages. In October 2009, the two actions were consolidated. The case is in the discovery stage and Inuvo is vigorously defending the matter.

Litigation Relating to the Merger. On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Vertro, its directors, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. on behalf of a putative class of Vertro shareholders (the “New York Action”). Two other complaints, also purportedly brought on behalf of the same class of shareholders, were filed on November 3 and 10, 2011, against these same defendants in Delaware Chancery Court and were ultimately consolidated by the Court (the “Delaware Action”). The plaintiffs in both the New York and the Delaware Actions alleged that Vertro’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding the merger with Inuvo and that Vertro, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs asked that the merger be enjoined and sought other unspecified monetary relief.

Plaintiffs in the Delaware Action requested expedited discovery and related proceedings, but this request was denied by the Delaware Chancery Court on December 21, 2011. Defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, but before the briefing of that motion was complete the plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which was entered by the Delaware Court on March 20, 2012. The defendants in the New York Action also moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative to stay proceedings. The New York Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay on February 22, 2012 and, as a result of this ruling, the Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiff’s pending request for expedited discovery.

We were a party to litigation with a former employee, for alleged breach of an employment agreement and other contract and tort claims. On April 7, 2011, we entered into an agreement to settle this litigation pursuant to which we agreed to pay an aggregate of $125,000, partially covered by insurance, and issue 50,000 shares of the our common stock valued at approximately $135,000 in full settlement of this litigation. We recorded a one-time charge of $235,000 related to this settlement and it is included in Litigation Settlements in the 2011 consolidated statements of operations.

Scott Mitchell v. Inuvo. In January 2012 we were named as a defendant in an action styled Scott Mitchell versus Inuvo, Inc., f/k/a Think Partnership Inc. and Kowabunga! Inc., Does I-X , Case No. A-11-653956-C in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The complaint is related to our alleged failure to fully indemnify Mr. Mitchell, our former chief executive officer and member of the board of directors, pursuant to the terms of an indemnification agreement entered into in connection with his employment agreement, for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by him related to an investigation of insider trading brought against Mr. Mitchell by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleges that Mr. Mitchell has subsequently received correspondence from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Commission does not intend to make any recommendation for an enforcement action against him. Under the terms of Inuvo’s director’s and officer’s liability policy, its insurer has already paid approximately $588,000 of attorneys’ fees and costs to Mr. Mitchell’s counsel. Mr. Mitchell is seeking an additional approximately $265,000 of fees and costs which he allegedly owes to his counsel. The complaint alleges breach of contract/indemnity agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and failure to indemnify pursuant to our bylaws and the Nevada statutes. The complaint seeks a judgment against us for actual, consequential and special damages in excess of $10,000, advances of fees, costs and expenses, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, pre and post-judgment interest and a determination of his rights with respect to the indemnification agreement, our bylaws and the Nevada statutes. Given the amount of recovered funds received by Mr. Mitchell, and the position of Inuvo’s insurer that any reimbursement beyond what has already been paid is unwarranted, Inuvo intends to defend this lawsuit on the basis of the scope of the applicable indemnification and the reasonableness of the fees demanded.