COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Class Action Lawsuit As previously disclosed, a consolidated class action lawsuit (captioned Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-01026) has been filed against the Company, Douglas McCrosson, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, Vincent Palazzolo, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer, and the two underwriters of the Company’s October 16, 2018 offering of common stock, Canaccord Genuity LLC and B. Riley FBR. The Amended Complaint in the action asserts claims on behalf of two plaintiff classes: (i) purchasers of the Company’s common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company’s offering conducted on or about October 16, 2018; and (ii) purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 22, 2018 through February 14, 2020. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by negligently permitting false and misleading statements to be included in the registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in connection with its October 16, 2018 securities offering. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making false and misleading statements in the Company’s periodic reports filed between March 22, 2018 through February 14, 2020. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; rescission or a rescissory measure of damages; unspecified equitable or injunctive relief; and costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and expert fees. On February 19, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 23, 2021. On May 20, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in the amount of $3,600,000, subject to court approval. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On November 10, 2021, a magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant the motion for preliminary approval in its entirety. The motion remains pending. After satisfaction of our $750,000 retention, the Settlement Amount will be covered and paid by our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier. As of June 30, 2021, we have previously paid or accrued to our financial statements covered expenses totaling $750,000, and have therefore met our directors’ and officers’ retention requirement, which caps the Company’s expenses pertaining to the class action suit. As of June 30, 2021, in order to reflect the amounts owed from our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier and to the Plaintiffs, we have recorded to our balance sheet a litigation settlement obligation of $3,371,162 and an insurance recovery receivable of $2,850,000; this obligation and receivable will be relieved from our balance sheet upon the payment of the Settlement Amount to the Plaintiff by our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier. Shareholder Derivative Action Four shareholder derivative actions have been filed against current members of our board of directors and certain of our current and former officers. The first action (captioned Moulton v. McCrosson, et.al., No. 20-cv-02092) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for violations of Section 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and contribution, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks declaratory, equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2021, the Court stayed the action pursuant to a joint stipulation filed by the parties. The second action (captioned Woodyard v. McCrosson, et al., Index No. 613169/2020) was filed on September 17, 2020, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Suffolk County), and purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct, along with declaratory, equitable, injunctive and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On December 22, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action pending further developments in the class action. The third action (captioned Berger v. McCrosson, et al., No. 1:20-cv-05454) was filed on November 10, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and purports to assert derivative claims against current and former members of our board of directors, and certain of our current and former officers. The complaint, which is based on the shareholder’s inspection of certain corporate books and records, purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to implement reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures and to recover on behalf of the Company an unspecified amount of monetary damages. The complaint also seeks equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On March 19, 2021, the parties to the Moulton and Berger actions filed a joint stipulation consolidating the actions (under the caption In re CPI Aerostructures Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 20-cv-02092) and staying the consolidated action pending further developments in the class action. The fourth action (captioned Wurst v. Bazaar, et al., Index No. 605244/2021) was filed on March 24, 2021, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Suffolk County), and purports to assert derivative claims against the Company’s current and former executive officers, certain board members, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks declaratory, equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On April 12, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action pending further developments in the class action. Each of these derivative actions is based substantially on the same facts alleged in the class action complaint summarized above. SEC Investigation On May 22, 2020, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC Division of Enforcement (the “Division”) seeking documents and information relating, among other things, to previously disclosed errors in and restatement of the Company’s financial statements, the Company’s October 16, 2018 equity offering and the recent separation of the Company’s former Chief Financial Officers. By letter dated March 12, 2021, the Division Staff notified the Company that the Division has concluded its investigation and, based on the information the Division has as of such date, it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. The Division’s notice was provided under the guidelines described in the final paragraph of Securities Act Release No. 5310 which states in part that the notice “must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff’s investigation.”

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Class Action Lawsuit

As previously disclosed, a consolidated class action lawsuit (captioned Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-01026) has been filed against the Company, Douglas McCrosson, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, Vincent Palazzolo, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer, and the two underwriters of the Company’s October 16, 2018 offering of common stock, Canaccord Genuity LLC and B. Riley FBR. The Amended Complaint in the action asserts claims on behalf of two plaintiff classes: (i) purchasers of the Company’s common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company’s offering conducted on or about October 16, 2018; and (ii) purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 22, 2018 through February 14, 2020. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by negligently permitting false and misleading statements to be included in the registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in connection with its October 16, 2018 securities offering. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making false and misleading statements in the Company’s periodic reports filed between March 22, 2018 through February 14, 2020. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; rescission or a rescissory measure of damages; unspecified equitable or injunctive relief; and costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and expert fees. On February 19, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 23, 2021.

On May 20, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in the amount of $3,600,000, subject to court approval. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On November 10, 2021, a magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant the motion for preliminary approval in its entirety. The motion remains pending. After satisfaction of our $750,000 retention, the Settlement Amount will be covered and paid by our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier. As of June 30, 2021, we have previously paid or accrued to our financial statements covered expenses totaling $750,000, and have therefore met our directors’ and officers’ retention requirement, which caps the Company’s expenses pertaining to the class action suit.

As of June 30, 2021, in order to reflect the amounts owed from our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier and to the Plaintiffs, we have recorded to our balance sheet a litigation settlement obligation of $3,371,162 and an insurance recovery receivable of $2,850,000; this obligation and receivable will be relieved from our balance sheet upon the payment of the Settlement Amount to the Plaintiff by our directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier.

Shareholder Derivative Action

Four shareholder derivative actions have been filed against current members of our board of directors and certain of our current and former officers.

The first action (captioned Moulton v. McCrosson, et.al., No. 20-cv-02092) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for violations of Section 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and contribution, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks declaratory, equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2021, the Court stayed the action pursuant to a joint stipulation filed by the parties.

The second action (captioned Woodyard v. McCrosson, et al., Index No. 613169/2020) was filed on September 17, 2020, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Suffolk County), and purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct, along with declaratory, equitable, injunctive and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On December 22, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action pending further developments in the class action.

The third action (captioned Berger v. McCrosson, et al., No. 1:20-cv-05454) was filed on November 10, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and purports to assert derivative claims against current and former members of our board of directors, and certain of our current and former officers. The complaint, which is based on the shareholder’s inspection of certain corporate books and records, purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks to implement reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures and to recover on behalf of the Company an unspecified amount of monetary damages. The complaint also seeks equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs.

On March 19, 2021, the parties to the Moulton and Berger actions filed a joint stipulation consolidating the actions (under the caption In re CPI Aerostructures Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 20-cv-02092) and staying the consolidated action pending further developments in the class action.

The fourth action (captioned Wurst v. Bazaar, et al., Index No. 605244/2021) was filed on March 24, 2021, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Suffolk County), and purports to assert derivative claims against the Company’s current and former executive officers, certain board members, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks declaratory, equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. On April 12, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action pending further developments in the class action.

Each of these derivative actions is based substantially on the same facts alleged in the class action complaint summarized above.

SEC Investigation

On May 22, 2020, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC Division of Enforcement (the “Division”) seeking documents and information relating, among other things, to previously disclosed errors in and restatement of the Company’s financial statements, the Company’s October 16, 2018 equity offering and the recent separation of the Company’s former Chief Financial Officers. By letter dated March 12, 2021, the Division Staff notified the Company that the Division has concluded its investigation and, based on the information the Division has as of such date, it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. The Division’s notice was provided under the guidelines described in the final paragraph of Securities Act Release No. 5310 which states in part that the notice “must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff’s investigation.”