XML 44 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies ANDA Litigation - Perrigo 4mg On September 14, 2018, Adapt Pharma Inc., Adapt Pharma Operations Limited and Adapt Pharma Ltd. (collectively, Adapt Pharma), and Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Opiant), received notice from Perrigo UK FINCO Limited Partnership (Perrigo) that Perrigo had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of NARCAN® (naloxone hydrochloride) Nasal Spray 4mg/spray before the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,211,253 (the ‘253 Patent), 9,468,747 (the ‘747 Patent), 9,561,177 (the ‘177 Patent), 9,629,965 (the ‘965 Patent), and 9,775,838 (the ‘838 Patent). On or about October 25, 2018, Perrigo sent a subsequent notice letter relating to U.S. Patent No. 10,085,937 (the ‘937 Patent). Perrigo’s notice letters assert that its generic product will not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of these patents. On October 25, 2018, Emergent BioSolutions’ Adapt Pharma subsidiaries and Opiant (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed a complaint for patent infringement of the ‘253, ‘747, ‘177, ‘965, and the ‘838 Patents against Perrigo in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey arising from Perrigo’s ANDA filing with the FDA. Plaintiffs filed a second complaint against Perrigo on December 7, 2018, for the infringement of the ‘937 Patent. As a result of timely filing the first lawsuit in accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act, a 30-month stay of approval will be imposed by the FDA on Perrigo’s ANDA, which is expected to remain in effect until March 2021 absent an earlier judgment, unfavorable to the Plaintiffs, by the Court. ANDA Litigation - Teva 2mg On or about February 27, 2018, Adapt Pharma Inc. and Adapt Pharma Operations Limited and Opiant received notice from Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively Teva), that Teva had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of NARCAN® (naloxone hydrochloride) Nasal Spray 2 mg/spray before the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,644 (the ‘644 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 9,707,226 (the '226 Patent). Teva's notice letter asserts that the commercial manufacture, use or sale of its generic drug product described in its ANDA will not infringe the '644 Patent or the '226 Patent, or that the '644 Patent and '226 Patent are invalid or unenforceable. Adapt Pharma Inc. and Adapt Pharma Operations Limited and Opiant filed a complaint for patent infringement against Teva in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. ANDA Litigation - Teva 4mg On or about September 13, 2016, Adapt Pharma Inc. and Adapt Pharma Operations Limited and Opiant received notice from Teva that Teva had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of NARCAN® (naloxone hydrochloride) Nasal Spray 4 mg/spray before the expiration of the '253 Patent. Adapt Pharma Inc. and Adapt Pharma Operations Limited and Opiant received additional notices from Teva relating to the '747, the '177, the '965, the '838, and the ‘937 Patents. Teva's notice letters assert that the commercial manufacture, use or sale of its generic drug product described in its ANDA will not infringe the '253, the '747, the '177, the '965, the '838, or the ‘937 Patent, or that the '253, the '747, the '177, the '965, the '838, and the ‘937 Patents are invalid or unenforceable. Adapt Pharma Inc. and Adapt Pharma Operations Limited and Opiant filed a complaint for patent infringement against Teva in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with respect to the '253 Patent. Adapt Pharma Inc. and Adapt Pharma Operations Limited and Opiant also filed complaints for patent infringement against Teva in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with respect to the '747, the '177, the '965, and the '838 Patents. All five proceedings have been consolidated. As of the date of this filing, Adapt Pharma Inc., Adapt Pharma Operations Limited, and Opiant, have not filed a complaint related to the ‘937 Patent. In the complaints described in the paragraphs above, the Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, orders that the effective date of FDA approvals of the Teva ANDA products and the Perrigo ANDA product be a date not earlier than the expiration of the patents listed for each product, equitable relief enjoining Teva and Perrigo from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing the products that are the subject of Teva and Perrigo’s respective ANDAs, until after the expiration of the patents listed for each product, and monetary relief or other relief as deemed just and proper by the court. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit filed July 19, 2016 On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn (Sponn), filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to pursue remedies under the Exchange Act against the Company and certain of its senior officers and directors (collectively, the Defendants). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the government’s demand for BioThrax and expectations that the Company’s five-year exclusive procurement contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be renewed, and omitted certain material facts. Sponn sought unspecified damages, including legal costs. On October 25, 2016, the court added City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters’ Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers’ Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. On December 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that cited the same class period, named the same defendants and made similar allegations to the original complaint. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on April 28, 2017. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was heard and denied on July 6, 2017. The Defendants filed an answer on July 28, 2017. The parties then engaged in the discovery process. The plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification and appointment of Lead Plaintiffs, Sponn, and Geoffrey L. Flagstad (Flagstad) as Class Representatives on December 20, 2017. A hearing on that motion was heard on May 2, 2018. On June 8, 2018 the Court granted class certification with a shortened class period, from May 5, 2016 to June 21, 2016. In that same order, the court appointed Flagstad as Class Representative and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. The Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages. However, recognizing the risk, time, and expense of litigating any case to trial, on August 27, 2018, the Defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle all of the related claims of any individual plaintiff that purchased or acquired Company stock from January 11, 2016 to June 21, 2016, for $6.5 million, an amount that was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier. The settlement required no payment by any of the Defendants. The Defendants continue to deny any and all liability. The parties executed the settlement agreement on October 16, 2018 and filed the agreement with the court on October 17, 2018. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 18, 2018. At the time of the approval of the settlement on January 22, 2019, there were no objections to the settlement, but there were two shareholders who had submitted opt-outs so that they could be excluded from the settlement. On January 25, 2019, the court issued an order and final judgment approving the settlement. The time to file a notice of appeal has passed. Defendants continue to believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration