XML 32 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Dr. Sobol In December 2016, Louis L. Sobol, M.D. (“Sobol”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division against the Company, asserting claims on behalf of himself and an as-yet-uncertified class of consumers. The claims allege violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 via the Company’s alleged transmittal of advertisements to its clients via facsimile. In June 2018, Sobol filed a motion for class certification and in July 2018 the Company filed a response in opposition to the motion for class certification. A hearing on class certification was heard in October 2018, however, prior to a decision regarding class certification was made, in February 2019, the Company entered into a proposed settlement agreement to award the proposed class up to $1,400 in damages. Due to the nature of the lawsuit and claims, the Company expects total damages related to this lawsuit will total approximately $640. The Company expects the Court will rule to accept the settlement agreement in the spring of 2019. The Company accrued an expense of $640 (see Note 10), its estimated damages related to the settlement agreement, during the year ended December 31, 2018. Allergan USA In September 2017, Allergan USA, Inc. (“Allergan”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, primarily claiming violations under the federal Lanham Act and California’s Sherman Act. The parties each filed a motion for summary judgment and Imprimis also filed a motion to stay. The parties’ motions were heard on March 26, 2019, with both parties motions being partially granted. The trial date to determine damages, if any, is currently set for May 2019. The Company believes the claims for damages are meritless, and intends to vigorously defend against Allergan’s allegations. Nonetheless, the Company cannot predict the eventual outcome of this litigation, it could result in substantial costs, losses and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of its common stock. Novel Drug Solutions et al. In April 2018, Novel Drug Solutions, LLC and Eyecare Northwest, PA, (collectively “NDS”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court of Delaware asserting claims for breach of contract. The claims stem from an asset purchase agreement between the Company and NDS entered into in 2013. In July 2018, NDS filed a first amended complaint which added a claim for fraudulent inducement. In October 2018, the Company filed counterclaims alleging breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and named certain individual defendants. The lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase. The Company believe the claims are meritless and have previously and will continue to dispute all claims asserted against it and intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. Nonetheless, the Company cannot predict the eventual outcome of this litigation, it could result in substantial costs, losses and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of its common stock. California Board of Pharmacy In March 2018, the California Board of Pharmacy filed an accusation against Park related to a compounded formulation the Company believes was legally dispensed and was, without its knowledge, inappropriately administered to a patient unknown to Park, by the prescribing healthcare professional. Park filed a response to the accusation and requested a formal hearing. In April 2019, Park agreed to and the California Board of Pharmacy approved terms of a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) that will become effective on or near May 29, 2019. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Park will be required to surrender Park’s California pharmacy license by August 27, 2019; provided however, in the event of a sale of Park, the California Board of Pharmacy has agreed to expedite the issuance of a temporary license to the Park acquiror. In the event Park is not sold, the Company intends to transfer substantially all of the Park business and related revenues to its New Jersey based pharmacy. Product and Professional Liability Product and professional liability litigation represents an inherent risk to all firms in the pharmaceutical and pharmacy industry. The Company utilizes traditional third-party insurance policies with regard to its product and professional liability claims. Such insurance coverage at any given time reflects current market conditions, including cost and availability, when the policy is written. John Erick et al. In January 2018, John Erick and Deborah Ferrell, successors-in-interest and heirs of Jade Erick, (collectively “Erick”) filed a lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior against Kim Kelly, ND, MPH asserting claims related to death of Jade Erick. In April 2018, Erick filed an amendment to the lawsuit, naming the Company as a co-defendant. In September 2018, co-defendant Dr. Kelly filed a cross-complaint against the Company and various Spectrum entities. The cross-complaint seeks indemnity and contribution from the Company and Spectrum. The Company answered the claims filed by Dr. Kelly in October 2018. The case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company believes the claims are meritless and has previously and will continue to dispute all claims asserted against it and intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. The Company cannot predict the eventual outcome of this litigation. Nonetheless, the litigation process could result in substantial costs, losses and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of its common stock. General and Other In the ordinary course of business, the Company may face various claims brought by third parties and it may, from time to time, make claims or take legal actions to assert its rights, including intellectual property disputes, contractual disputes and other commercial disputes. Any of these claims could subject the Company to litigation. Indemnities In addition to the indemnification provisions contained in the Company’s charter documents, the Company generally enters into separate indemnification agreements with each of the Company’s directors and officers. These agreements require the Company, among other things, to indemnify the director or officer against specified expenses and liabilities, such as attorneys’ fees, judgments, fines and settlements, paid by the individual in connection with any action, suit or proceeding arising out of the individual’s status or service as the Company’s director or officer, other than liabilities arising from willful misconduct or conduct that is knowingly fraudulent or deliberately dishonest, and to advance expenses incurred by the individual in connection with any proceeding against the individual with respect to which the individual may be entitled to indemnification by the Company. The Company also indemnifies its lessors in connection with its facility leases for certain claims arising from the use of the facilities. These indemnities do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential future payments the Company could be obligated to make. Historically, the Company has not incurred any payments for these obligations and, therefore, no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. Klarity License Agreement – Related Party In April 2017 and as amended in April 2018, the Company entered into a license agreement (the “Klarity License Agreement”) with Richard L. Lindstrom, M.D., a member of its Board of Directors. Pursuant to the terms of the Klarity License Agreement, the Company licensed certain intellectual property and related rights from Dr. Lindstrom to develop, formulate, make, sell, and sub-license the topical ophthalmic solution Klarity used to protect and rehabilitate the ocular surface (the “Klarity Product”). Under the terms of the Klarity License Agreement, the Company is required to make royalty payments to Dr. Lindstrom ranging from 3% - 6% of net sales, dependent upon the final formulation of the Klarity Product sold. In addition, the Company is required to make certain milestone payments to Dr. Lindstrom including: (i) an initial payment of $50 upon execution of the Klarity License Agreement, (ii) a second payment of $50 following the first $50 in net sales of the Klarity Product; and (iii) a final payment of $50 following the first $100 in net sales of the Klarity Product. All of the above referenced milestone payments are payable at the Company’s election in cash or shares of the Company’s restricted common stock. Payments totaling $15 were made during the three months ended March 31, 2019. $22 was incurred as royalty expense during the three months ended and included in accounts payable to Dr. Lindstrom at March 31, 2019. Sales and Marketing Agreements During 2017, the Company entered various sales and marketing agreements with certain organizations, to provide exclusive sales and marketing representation services to Harrow in select geographies in the U.S., in connection with our ophthalmic compounded formulations. Under the terms of the sales and marketing agreements, the Company is required to make commission payments to equal to 10% - 14% of net sales for products above and beyond the initial existing sales amounts. In addition, the Company is required to make periodic milestone payments to certain organizations in shares of the Company’s restricted common stock if net sales in the assigned territory reach certain future levels by the end of their terms, as applicable. $75 of stock-based payments were made and $542 were incurred under these agreements for commission expenses during the three months ended March 31, 2019. Asset Purchase, License and Related Agreements The Company has acquired and sourced intellectual property rights related to certain proprietary innovations from certain inventors and related parties (the “Inventors”) through multiple asset purchase agreements, license agreements, strategic agreements and commission agreements. In general, these agreements provide that the Inventors will cooperate with the Company in obtaining patent protection for the acquired intellectual property and that the Company will use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop and commercialize a product based on the acquired intellectual property. In addition, the Company has acquired a right of first refusal on additional intellectual property and drug development opportunities presented by these Inventors. In consideration for the acquisition of the intellectual property rights, the Company is obligated to make payments to the Inventors based on the completion of certain milestones, generally consisting of: (1) a payment payable within 30 days after the issuance of the first patent in the United States arising from the acquired intellectual property (if any); (2) a payment payable within 30 days after the Company files the first investigational new drug application (“IND”) with the FDA for the first product arising from the acquired intellectual property (if any); (3) for certain of the Inventors, a payment payable within 30 days after the Company files the first new drug application with the FDA for the first product arising from the acquired intellectual property (if any); and (4) certain royalty payments based on the net receipts received by the Company in connection with the sale or licensing of any product based on the acquired intellectual property (if any), after deducting (among other things) the Company’s development costs associated with such product. If, following five years after the date of the applicable asset purchase agreement, the Company either (a) for certain of the Inventors, has not filed an IND or, for the remaining Inventors, has not initiated a study where data is derived, or (b) has failed to generate royalty payments to the Inventors for any product based on the acquired intellectual property, the Inventors may terminate the applicable asset purchase agreement and request that the Company re-assign the acquired technology to the Inventors. $191 and $83 were incurred under these agreements as royalty expenses for the three months ended and included in accounts payable at March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration