Legal Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal Matters
Legal Matters	(9) Legal Matters On February 9, 2007, Nuvelo and certain of Nuvelo's former and then current officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which Nuvelo announced on December 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period between January 5, 2006 and December 8, 2006. Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of success. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York on February 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007, respectively. In July 2007, the Court granted Nuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District of California. The cases were consolidated with the original lawsuit, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the Northern District of California on November 9, 2007. Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint on December 21, 2007. On June 12, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On December 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, and granting leave to amend. On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging similar claims. On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 15, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On August 17, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion. ARCA filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint on October 1, 2009. On December 29, 2010, ARCA and the other defendants reached a settlement of the litigation with the plaintiffs, after participating in mediation before a retired federal judge. On February 25, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was submitted to the Court for approval. ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to fund the settlement, subject to a reservation of rights by one carrier. On June 20, 2011 the court issued a final judgment and order approving the settlement of, and dismissing with prejudice, the purported securities class action lawsuit. On July 25, 2011 the order became effective when no appeals or motions to alter or amend the judgment were filed. Members of the class are bound by the settlement and the release therein, which prevents them from ever asserting any related claims against the defendants. Although ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to pay most of the legal fees that have been incurred in defending this litigation, ARCA has separately agreed with its legal counsel to pay $167,000 in legal defense costs incurred, but only if ARCA obtains additional funding of at least $10 million in 2011. If ARCA does not obtain such additional funding in 2011, ARCA will have no such payment obligation. In addition, on or about December 6, 2001, Variagenics, Inc. was sued in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming it and certain of its officers and underwriters as defendants. The complaint purportedly is filed on behalf of persons purchasing Variagenics' stock between July 21, 2000 and December 6, 2000, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, in connection with Variagenics' July 21, 2000 initial public offering, or IPO, the defendants failed to disclose additional and excessive commissions purportedly solicited by and paid to the underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of Variagenics' stock to preferred customers and alleged agreements among the underwriter defendants and preferred customers tying the allocation of IPO shares to agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at predetermined prices. Plaintiffs claim that the failure to disclose these alleged arrangements made Variagenics' registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in July 2000 and the prospectus, a part of the registration statement, materially false and misleading. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. On or about April 19, 2002, an amended complaint was filed which makes essentially the same allegations. ARCA is involved in this litigation as a result of Nuvelo's merger with Variagenics in January 2003. On April 1, 2009 the parties entered into a settlement agreement. On October 5, 2009, the Court approved the settlement agreement. ARCA's share of the settlement is approximately $385,000. Although the settlement has been approved, it has been appealed by members of the class. ARCA believes that any attorneys' fees, loss or settlement payment with respect to this suit will be paid by its insurance provider. However, it is possible that ARCA could be forced to incur material expenses in the litigation if the parties cannot complete a settlement, and, in the event of an adverse outcome, ARCA's business could be harmed.

(9) Legal Matters

On February 9, 2007, Nuvelo and certain of Nuvelo's former and then current officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which Nuvelo announced on December 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period between January 5, 2006 and December 8, 2006. Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of success. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York on February 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007, respectively. In July 2007, the Court granted Nuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District of California. The cases were consolidated with the original lawsuit, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the Northern District of California on November 9, 2007. Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint on December 21, 2007. On June 12, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On December 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, and granting leave to amend. On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging similar claims. On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 15, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On August 17, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion. ARCA filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint on October 1, 2009.

On December 29, 2010, ARCA and the other defendants reached a settlement of the litigation with the plaintiffs, after participating in mediation before a retired federal judge. On February 25, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was submitted to the Court for approval. ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to fund the settlement, subject to a reservation of rights by one carrier. On June 20, 2011 the court issued a final judgment and order approving the settlement of, and dismissing with prejudice, the purported securities class action lawsuit. On July 25, 2011 the order became effective when no appeals or motions to alter or amend the judgment were filed. Members of the class are bound by the settlement and the release therein, which prevents them from ever asserting any related claims against the defendants. Although ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to pay most of the legal fees that have been incurred in defending this litigation, ARCA has separately agreed with its legal counsel to pay $167,000 in legal defense costs incurred, but only if ARCA obtains additional funding of at least $10 million in 2011. If ARCA does not obtain such additional funding in 2011, ARCA will have no such payment obligation.

In addition, on or about December 6, 2001, Variagenics, Inc. was sued in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming it and certain of its officers and underwriters as defendants. The complaint purportedly is filed on behalf of persons purchasing Variagenics' stock between July 21, 2000 and December 6, 2000, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, in connection with Variagenics' July 21, 2000 initial public offering, or IPO, the defendants failed to disclose additional and excessive commissions purportedly solicited by and paid to the underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of Variagenics' stock to preferred customers and alleged agreements among the underwriter defendants and preferred customers tying the allocation of IPO shares to agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at predetermined prices. Plaintiffs claim that the failure to disclose these alleged arrangements made Variagenics' registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in July 2000 and the prospectus, a part of the registration statement, materially false and misleading. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. On or about April 19, 2002, an amended complaint was filed which makes essentially the same allegations. ARCA is involved in this litigation as a result of Nuvelo's merger with Variagenics in January 2003. On April 1, 2009 the parties entered into a settlement agreement. On October 5, 2009, the Court approved the settlement agreement. ARCA's share of the settlement is approximately $385,000. Although the settlement has been approved, it has been appealed by members of the class. ARCA believes that any attorneys' fees, loss or settlement payment with respect to this suit will be paid by its insurance provider. However, it is possible that ARCA could be forced to incur material expenses in the litigation if the parties cannot complete a settlement, and, in the event of an adverse outcome, ARCA's business could be harmed.