XML 47 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | (7) Commitments and Contingencies Litigation – U.S. ANDAs On March 30, 2020, the Nevada Court, ruled in favor of two generics companies, Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s, in Amarin’s patent litigation related to its ANDAs that sought U.S. FDA approval for sale of generic versions of VASCEPA for the original indication of VASCEPA as an adjunct to diet to reduce TG levels in adult patients with severe (>500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia. On September 3, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Federal Circuit, upheld the March ruling by the Nevada Court in favor of the two generics companies. On October 2, 2020, the Company filed a combined petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. On November 4, 2020, the Company’s rehearing and en banc petitions were denied. On February 11, 2021, Amarin filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to ask the Court to hear the Company’s appeal in this litigation, which was denied on June 18, 2021. On May 22, 2020 and August 10, 2020, Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s, respectively, received U.S. FDA approval to market its generic versions of VASCEPA. During the ANDA litigation, the Company reached agreements with Teva and Apotex, under which they received royalty-free license agreements to promote a generic version of icosapent ethyl in the U.S. under certain circumstances, one of which circumstances was achieved when the Federal Circuit upheld the ruling by the Nevada Court and Hikma launched its generic version of icosapent ethyl. On September 11, 2020, and June 30, 2021, Teva and Apotex, respectively, received U.S. FDA approval to market their respective generic versions of icosapent ethyl. In November 2020, Hikma announced the price and launched its generic version of icosapent ethyl. In June 2021, Dr. Reddy’s announced the price and launched its generic version of icosapent ethyl. In January 2022, Apotex announced the price and launched its generic version of icosapent ethyl. In September 2022, Teva announced the price and launched its generic version of icosapent ethyl for the 0.5-gram capsule and the 1.0 gram capsule in January 2023. All generic versions of icosapent ethyl as approved by the U.S. FDA pertains to the MARINE indication of VASCEPA, lowering of TG levels in patients with very high TG (>500 mg/dL). Current generic competition, together with past and on-going litigation related to such generic versions of icosapent ethyl are applicable to the U.S. only. The Company did not seek, nor is VAZKEPA approved in Europe for lowering of TG levels in patients with very high TG (>500 mg/dL). The active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA is difficult and time consuming to manufacture, often requires considerable advanced planning and long-term financial commitment, including to manufacturing infrastructure such as dedicated facilities, to ensure sufficient capacity is available when needed. The Company has invested over a decade of resources and expenses to develop with individual members of its third-party, active pharmaceutical ingredient supply chain the technical knowhow, manufacturing processes and related regulatory approvals that have helped enable the Company’s suppliers to supply the Company’s need for clinical and commercial supply globally. In November 2020, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma in the United States District Court in Delaware. The complaint alleged that Hikma induced the infringement of VASCEPA-related CV risk reduction U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 (Composition for preventing the occurrence of cardiovascular event in multiple risk patient), 8,642,077 (Stable pharmaceutical composition and methods of using same), and 10,568,861 (Methods of reducing the risk of a cardiovascular event in a subject at risk for cardiovascular disease) by making, selling, offering to sell and importing generic icosapent ethyl capsules in or into the United States. In January 2021, the Company expanded the scope of the VASCEPA CV risk reduction patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma to include a health care insurance provider in the United States, Health Net LLC, or Health Net. Through insurance coverage and economic incentives the Company alleged that Health Net has actively induced pharmacies to dispense, and patients to use, Hikma generic icosapent ethyl capsules in infringement of the related patents. In the complaint, the Company sought remedies including a permanent injunction against the unlawful inducement by Hikma and Health Net of infringing uses of the Hikma generic product, i.e., uses to reduce cardiovascular risk as detailed in the patents, and monetary damages in an amount sufficient to compensate the Company for such infringement. On January 4, 2022, the district court hearing the case granted Hikma's motion to dismiss. On October 13, 2022, the district court granted final judgement on the aspect of the litigation relating to the Company and Hikma. The Company has appealed the decision of the district court. On December 26, 2022, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Health Net that resolved the litigation relating to the Company and Health Net. The Company will continue to consider its legal options against parties similarly situated to Health Net and Hikma and acting in concert with either by making or selling any drug product or component thereof covered by the subject patents, or inducing others to do the same. As has been a practice in the generic pharmaceutical industry, on April 27, 2021 and February 21, 2023, Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma, respectively, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil actions No.21-cv-10309 and No.3:23-cv-01016, alleging various antitrust violations stemming from alleged anticompetitive practices related to the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA. The complaints also includes a related state law tortious interference claim. Damages sought include recovery for alleged economic harm to Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma's, payors and consumers, treble damages and other costs and fees. Injunctive relief against the alleged violative activities is also being sought by Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma. Amarin believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims. In March 2021, Amarin received a civil investigative demand, or CID, from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and a subpoena from the New York Attorney General with respect to information on the same antitrust topic covered in the Dr. Reddy's litigation. Similarly, in June 2020, the Company received a CID from the U.S. Department of Justice, or the DOJ, informing Amarin that the DOJ is investigating whether aspects of its promotional speaker programs and copayment waiver program during the period from January 1, 2015 to the present violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and the U.S. Civil False Claims Act, in relation to the sale and marketing of VASCEPA by the Company and its previous co-marketing partner, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. The Company believes such contact from the governments may have been prompted by a generic competitor. The inquiries require the Company to produce documents and answer written questions, or interrogatories, relevant to specified time periods. Amarin is cooperating with the government agencies and cannot predict when these investigations will be resolved, the outcome of the investigations or their potential impact on the Company’s business. As has been a practice of class action legal counsel following governmental investigations and litigation by generics companies, Amarin is also named as a defendant in six antitrust class action lawsuits in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Uniformed Fire Officers Association Family Protection Plan Local 854 and the Uniformed Fire Officers Association for Retired Fire Officers Family Protection Plan, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12061, alleging Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by The International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12416, alleging Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund, on behalf of direct purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-13009. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-13406, alleging Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Board of Trustees of Heavy and General Laborers' Local Unions 472 and 172 of N.J. Welfare Fund, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-14639, alleging Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. These cases have been consolidated into In re Vascepa Antitrust Litigation (Indirect Purchasers), Civil Action No. 21-12061, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., on behalf of direct purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12747, alleging Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets. This case has been coordinated with the consolidated indirect purchaser case above as In re Vascepa Antitrust Litigation (Direct Purchasers), Civil Action No. 21-12747, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Such antitrust litigation and investigations can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt the Company’s business. The Company cannot predict when these matters will be resolved, their outcome or their potential impact on the Company’s business. If a government determines that Amarin has violated antitrust law, the Company could be subject to significant civil fines and penalties. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to VASCEPA, but cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any subsequently filed lawsuits. Litigation – Other On February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company’s publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the former chief executive officer and chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2019). On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J. March 12, 2019). On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No. 3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that added as defendants the Company’s former chief medical officer and the Company’s former chief executive officer. The Amended Complaint alleged that from September 24, 2018 to November 9, 2018 the Company misled investors by releasing topline results for the REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on biomarker increases in the placebo group as compared with baseline measurement. The Amended Complaint alleged that these data suggest that the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they alleged may have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group. The Amended Complaint further alleged that these purported misrepresentations and omissions inflated the share price. Based on these allegations, the suit asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 29, 2021, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss this litigation for failure to state a valid claim. The litigation was dismissed without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs the right to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs in this action did not file an amended complaint within the permitted filing deadline. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the motion to dismiss ruling, which has been denominated In re: Amarin Corp. PLC, case number 21-2071 (3d Cir.). On June 14, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the matter by the trial district court. On October 21, 2021, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the former chief executive officer and the former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Michael W. Kalb, No. 1:21-cv-19212 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2021) and a subsequent case, Dorfman v. Amarin Corporation plc, et al., No. 3:21-cv-19911 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2021), was filed in November 2021. In December 2021, several Amarin shareholders moved to consolidate the cases, or the Securities Litigation, and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2023 that added as a defendant the Company's former general counsel. The complaints in these actions are nearly identical and allege that the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk associated with the ANDA litigation described above and the risk that certain of the Company's patents would be invalidated. Based on these allegations, plaintiff alleges that he purchased securities at an inflated share price and brings claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with these claims. On April 7, 2022, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a derivative lawsuit naming the same officer defendants from the Securities Litigation, the Officer Defendants, and also the members of the Company's board of directors, and the Company as nominal defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Gary Schader v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero, Michael W. Kalb, Lars G. Ekman, Jan Van Heek, Karim Mikhail, Patrick J. O'Sullivan, Per Wold-Olsen, Kristine Peterson, David Stack, and Joseph S. Zakrzewski, No. 3:22-cv-02017 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2022). The complaint alleges, like the Securities Litigation, that the defendants allegedly downplayed the risk associated with the ANDA litigation and the risk that certain of the Company's patents would be invalidated. Based on the allegations, plaintiffs allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties and that the Officer Defendants were unjustly enriched, and plaintiffs seek contribution from the Officer Defendants for any liability they incur in the Securities Litigation and for which they are indemnified by the Company. On July 1, 2022, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this matter. 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. Milestone and Supply Purchase Obligations The Company currently has long-term supply agreements with multiple API suppliers and encapsulators. The Company is relying on these suppliers to meet current and potential future global demand for VASCEPA. Certain supply agreements require annual minimum volume commitments by the Company and certain volume shortfalls may require payments for such shortfalls. These agreements include requirements for the suppliers to meet certain product specifications and qualify their materials and facilities with applicable regulatory authorities including the U.S. FDA. The Company has incurred certain costs associated with the qualification of product produced by these suppliers. On June 6, 2022, the Company announced a Comprehensive Cost Reduction Plan which includes a comprehensive cost and organizational restructuring plan to address current shifts within the Company’s U.S. business as a result of the generic competition. As part of this plan, the Company has reviewed its contractual supplier purchase obligations and has entered into agreements with some suppliers to amend supplier agreements to align supply arrangements with current and future market demand. The Company continues to negotiate with other contract suppliers to align its supply arrangements with current and future global demand which may result in additional costs to the Company. As of December 31, 2022, the Company has a total of approximately $86.0 million in future contractual purchase obligations without consideration to ongoing discussions with other suppliers. On March 26, 2021, the EC approved the marketing authorization application for VAZKEPA. Under the 2004 share repurchase agreement with Laxdale upon receipt of pricing approval in Europe for the first indication for VASCEPA (or first indication of any product containing intellectual property acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company was obligated to make an aggregate stock or cash payment to the former shareholders of Laxdale (at the sole option of each of such former shareholders) of £7.5 million. On July 13, 2022 in connection with the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE's, final guidance for reimbursement of VAZKEPA and use across the National Health Service, or NHS, in England and Wales, representing receipt of marketing approval in Europe for the first indication for VAZKEPA, the Company became obligated to make the aggregate milestone payment of £7.5 million to Laxdale’s former shareholders (in either stock or cash at the election of each shareholder). A s of December 31, 2022, the Company has settled the first European indication approval milestone through issuance of stock and cash payments based on the respective shareholder's election. Also under the Laxdale agreement, upon receipt of a marketing approval in Europe for a further indication of VASCEPA (or further indication of any other product acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment (at the sole option of each of such former shareholder) of £5.0 million (approximately $6.0 million as of December 31, 2022) for the potential market approval. The Company has no provision for any of these obligations, except as noted above, since the amounts are either not paid or payable as of December 31, 2022.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration