(9) Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

On November 1, 2013, a purported investor of Amarin filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Steven Sklar v. Amarin Corporation plc et al., No. 13-cv-6954 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Substantially similar lawsuits, captioned Bove v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-07882 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013), Bentley v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-08283 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2013) and Siegel v. Amarin Corporation plc, No. 3:13-cv-07210 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2013), were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 9, 2013, the cases filed in the Southern District of New York were transferred to the District of New Jersey and all such cases are now consolidated as In re Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). The plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that Amarin and certain of its current and former officers and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding the FDA’s willingness to approve Vascepa’s ANCHOR indication and related contributing factors and the potential relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that approval. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company believes that it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against this class action suit, but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with the claims. The Company has insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any significant loss exposure that may arise from this action after payment by the Company of the associated deductible obligation under such insurance coverage.

On February 27, 2014, the Company commenced a lawsuit against the FDA that challenges FDA’s denial of the Company’s request for five-year NCE exclusivity for Vascepa based on its reading of the relevant statute, the Company’s view of FDA’s inconsistency with past actions in this area and the retroactive effect of what the Company believes is a new policy at FDA as it relates to Vascepa situation. The Company’s complaint requests that the court vacate FDA’s decision, declare that Vascepa is entitled to the benefits of five-year statutory exclusivity, bar the FDA from accepting any ANDA or similar application for which Vascepa is the reference-listed drug until after the statutory exclusivity period and set aside what the Company contends are—due to the denial of five-year exclusivity to Vascepa—prematurely accepted pending ANDA applications.

In March, April, and May 2014, the Company received paragraph IV certification notices from six companies contending to varying degrees that certain of its patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of a generic form of Vascepa as described in those companies’ abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs. The Company has commenced patent infringement lawsuits against each of these ANDA applicants. In each of the lawsuits, Amarin is seeking, among other remedies, an order enjoining the defendants from marketing generic versions of Vascepa before the last to expire of the asserted patents expires in 2030. In April 2014, Amarin filed lawsuits against Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corporation, or collectively, Apotex, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The cases against Apotex are captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Apotex, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 14-2550 (D.N.J) and Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Apotex, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 14-2958 (N.D. Ill.). In April 2014, Amarin also filed lawsuits against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The cases against Roxane are captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14-2551 (D.N.J) and Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14-901 (N.D. Ohio). Amarin voluntarily dismissed the Northern District of Ohio case against Roxane on May 7, 2014. In April 2014, Amarin also filed a lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., or collectively, Dr. Reddy’s, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case against Dr. Reddy’s is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 14-2760 (D.N.J.). In May 2014, Amarin also filed a lawsuit against Watson Laboratories, Inc. and Actavis plc, or Watson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. One of the Company’s directors, Patrick J. O’Sullivan, is also a director of Actavis plc. The case against Watson is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 14-3259 (D.N.J). On July 17, 2014, Amarin agreed to dismiss Actavis plc but the lawsuit against Watson remains pending. In June 2014, Amarin also filed a case against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Teva, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case against Teva is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14-3558 (D.N.J.). In June 2014, Amarin also filed a lawsuit against Andrx Labs, LLC, Andrx Corporation, and Actavis plc, or collectively, Andrx, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case against Andrx is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al v. Andrx Labs, LLC et. al., Civ. A. No. 14-3924 (D.N.J.). As a result of the 30-month stay associated with the filing of these lawsuits under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot grant final approval to any ANDA before September 2016, unless there is an earlier court decision holding that the subject patents are not infringed and/or are invalid. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Vascepa, but cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits.

In addition to the above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is from time to time involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, proceedings, and threats of litigation relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements and other matters. While the outcome of these proceedings and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, as of December 31, 2014, the Company was not party to any legal or arbitration proceedings that may have, or have had in the recent past, significant effects on the Company’s financial position or profitability. No governmental proceedings are pending or, to its knowledge, contemplated against the Company. The Company is not a party to any material proceedings in which any director, member of senior management or affiliate is either a party adverse to the Company or its subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the Company or its subsidiaries.

Leases

The Company leases office space and office equipment under operating and capital leases. Future minimum lease payments under these leases as of December 31, 2014 are as follows (in thousands):


Year Ending December 31,	Operating
2015	$	636
2016		617
2017		628
2018		158
2019		—

Total	$	2,039

On September 30, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement for 320 square feet of office space at 2 Pembroke House, Upper Pembroke Street 28-32 in Dublin, Ireland. The office space was subsequently reduced to 270 square feet, effective November 1, 2013. The agreement began November 1, 2011 and terminates on October 31, 2015 and can be extended automatically for successive one year periods. Monthly rent is approximately €2,800 (approximately $3,400). The agreement can be terminated by either party with three months prior written notice.

On July 1, 2011, the Company leased 9,747 square feet of office space in Bedminster, New Jersey. The lease, as amended, terminates on March 31, 2018, and may also be terminated with six months prior notice. On December 6, 2011 the Company leased an additional 2,142 square feet of space in the same location. On December 15, 2012 and May 8, 2013, the Company leased an additional 2,601 and 10,883 square feet of space, respectively, in the same location. In January 2014 and April 2014, the Company entered into separate transactions with the landlord of this property to vacate approximately 2,142 and 2,000 square feet of space in exchange for discounts on contractual future rent payments. Additionally, in January 2015, the Company executed an agreement to sublease approximately 4,700 square feet of this property to a third party, effective April 1, 2015.

Total rent expense during the years ended 2014, 2013 and 2012 was approximately $1.0 million, $1.0 million, and $0.6 million, respectively.

Milestone and Supply Purchase Obligations

The Company entered into several product development agreements with, subject to performance obligations, certain milestone and supply purchase obligations, as detailed below:

•

The Company entered into its initial Vascepa API supply agreement with Nisshin Pharma, Inc., or Nisshin, in 2010. In 2011, the Company entered into agreements with two additional suppliers, Chemport, Inc., or Chemport, and BASF (formerly Equateq Limited) for the supply of API. In 2012, the Company agreed to terms with a fourth API supplier, a consortium of companies led by Slanmhor Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Slanmhor). These agreements included requirements for the suppliers to meet certain product specifications and qualify their materials and facilities with applicable regulatory authorities including the FDA. The Company has incurred certain costs associated with the qualification of product produced by these suppliers as described below.

Chemport was approved by the FDA to manufacture API for commercial sale in April 2013. The Company began purchasing commercial supply from Chemport in 2013. The agreement with Chemport contains a provision requiring the Company to pay Chemport in cash for any shortfall in the minimum purchase obligations. The 2011 supply agreement with Chemport includes commitments for the Company to fund (i) certain development fees, (ii) material purchases for initial raw materials, which amount will be credited against future API purchases and (iii) a raw material purchase commitment. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company made payments of $6.7 million to Chemport.

Chemport together with Nisshin are currently the two manufacturers from which the Company purchases API. The Company has no royalty, milestone or minimum purchase commitments with Nisshin.

The API supply agreement with BASF terminated in February 2014. In April 2014, the Company reached a settlement agreement with BASF under which it received a refund for material purchases of $3.0 million, included as other income in the statement of operations. The Company made payments of $3.1 million to BASF related to development and supply commitments through December 31, 2014.

The Company made payments of $6.2 million to the Slanmhor consortium related to development fees and other provisions through December 31, 2014 and during the year ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, made payments of $0.4 million and $6.1 million, respectively, to the Slanmhor consortium related to stability and technical batches and advances on anticipated future API purchases.

Pursuant to the agreements with the Company’s suppliers, there is a total of $55.5 million that is potentially payable over the term of such agreements based on minimum purchase obligations.

•

Concurrent with its entry into one of its API supply agreements, the Company agreed to make a non-controlling minority share equity investment in the supplier of $3.3 million. The Company invested $1.7 million under this agreement in July 2011 and the remaining $1.6 million during 2012. In September 2013, the Company entered into an equity sale and purchase agreement between this supplier and a third party in which the Company agreed to sell approximately $1.3 million of its investment in the supplier to the third party at cost. This transaction closed in the first quarter of 2014. In August 2014, the Company entered into a second equity sale and purchase agreement between this supplier and another third party in which the Company agreed to sell approximately $1.0 million of the remaining investment. This transaction closed in the fourth quarter of 2014. The carrying amount of the investment of $0.2 million and $3.3 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, is included in other long term assets and is accounted for under the cost method.

•

Under the 2004 share repurchase agreement with Laxdale Limited, or Laxdale, upon receipt of marketing approval in Europe for the first indication for Vascepa (or first indication of any product containing Amarin Neuroscience intellectual property acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment to the former shareholders of Laxdale (at the sole option of each of the sellers) of £7.5 million (approximately $11.7 million at December 31, 2014). Also under the Laxdale agreement, upon receipt of a marketing approval in the U.S. or Europe for a further indication of Vascepa (or further indication of any other product using Amarin Neuroscience intellectual property), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment (at the sole option of each of the sellers) of £5 million (approximately $7.8 million at December 31, 2014) for each of the two potential market approvals (i.e. £10 million maximum, or approximately $15.5 million at December 31, 2014).

The Company has no provision for any of the obligations above since the amounts are either not probable or able to be estimated at December 31, 2014.