COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Leases All our existing leases as of September 30, 2021 are classified as operating leases. As of September 30, 2021, we have nine material operating leases for facilities and office equipment with remaining terms expiring from 2022 through 2026 and a weighted average remaining lease term of 2.5 years. Many of our existing leases have fair value renewal options, none of which are considered certain of being exercised or included in the minimum lease term. Discount rates used in the calculation of our lease liability ranged between 3.99% and 8.95%. Rent expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021 and 2020 consisted of the following: Three Months Ended September 30, Nine Months Ended September 30, (in thousands) 2021 2020 2021 2020 Operating lease costs $ 40 $ 57 $ 132 $ 166 Variable lease costs 9 15 30 44 Total lease costs $ 49 $ 72 $ 162 $ 210 A maturity analysis of our operating leases follows: (in thousands) Future payments: 2021 $ 35 2022 127 2023 82 2024 56 2025 and thereafter 42 Total $ 342 Discount (22) Lease liability 320 Current lease liability (130) Non-current lease liability $ 190 Government Regulation Our products and facilities are subject to regulation by a number of federal and state governmental agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and Health Canada. The FDA, in particular, maintains oversight of the formulation, manufacture, distribution, packaging, and labeling of all of our products. The DEA and Health Canada maintain oversight over our products that are considered controlled substances. Unapproved Products Two of our products, Esterified Estrogen with Methyltestosterone (“EEMT”) and Opium Tincture, are marketed without approved NDAs or Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”). During the three months ended September 30, 2021 and 2020, net revenues for these products totaled $4.2 million and $4.3 million, respectively. During the nine months ended September 30, 2021 and 2020, net revenues for these products totaled $12.2 million and $12.4 million, respectively. In addition, one group of products that we manufacture on behalf of a contract customer is marketed by that customer without an approved NDA. If the FDA took enforcement action against such customer, the customer may be required to seek FDA approval for the group of products or withdraw them from the market. Our contract manufacturing revenues for the group of unapproved products for the three months ended September 30, 2021 and 2020 were $0.7 million. Our contract manufacturing revenues for the group of unapproved products for the nine months ended September 30, 2021 and 2020 were $2.1 million and $2.3 million, respectively. Legal Proceedings We are involved, and from time to time may become involved, in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries, investigations, government reimbursement related actions and litigation. These matters are complex and subject to significant uncertainties. As such, we cannot accurately predict the outcome, or the effects of the legal proceedings described below. While we believe that we have valid claims and/or defenses in the litigation and other matters described below, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of the proceedings could result in losses, including substantial damages, fines, civil or criminal penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. We intend to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these matters, as appropriate, however, from time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in our best interests. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition. Some of these matters with which we are involved are described below, and unless otherwise disclosed, we are unable to predict the outcome of the matter or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible material losses. We record accruals for loss contingencies to the extent we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. From time to time, we are also involved in other pending proceedings for which, in our opinion based upon facts and circumstances known at the time, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to our results, and therefore remain undisclosed. If and when any reasonably possible losses associated with the resolution of such other pending proceedings, in our opinion, become material, we will disclose such matters. Furthermore, like all pharmaceutical manufacturers, we are periodically exposed to product liability claims. The prevalence of these claims could limit our coverage under future insurance policies or cause those policies to become more expensive, which could harm our business, financial condition, and operating results. Recent trends in the product liability and director and officer insurance markets is to exclude matters related to certain classes of drugs. Our policies have been subject to such exclusions which place further potential risk of financial loss on us. Legal fees for litigation-related matters are expensed as incurred and included in the consolidated statements of operations under the selling, general, and administrative expense line item. Commercial Litigation In November of 2017, we were served with a complaint filed by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleged false advertising and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, Section 1125(a) of Title 15 of the United States Code, and Minnesota State law, under the premise that we sold an unapproved Erythromycin Ethylsuccinate (“EES”) product during the period between September 27, 2016 and November 2, 2018. The complaint sought a trial by jury and monetary damages (inclusive of actual and consequential damages, treble damages, disgorgement of ANI profits, and legal fees) of an unspecified amount. Discovery in this action closed on March 31, 2019 and trial was scheduled to commence on August 25, 2021. On August 3, 2021, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement with Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC to resolve all claims related to Civil Action 17-4910, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Arbor”) v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which was pending trial in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Under the terms of the agreement, ANI paid Arbor $8.4 million and Arbor dismissed the action with prejudice. Neither party admitted wrongdoing in reaching this settlement. The Company paid the settlement from cash on the balance sheet. On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic. On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints are substantively identical. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that, beginning in 2012, Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the Company’s January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen. The complaints allege that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violates federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs allege they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs seek damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other defendants and the Company at this early stage of the litigation cannot reasonably estimate the potential damages that the plaintiffs will seek. The cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York On March 24, 2021, Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Azurity”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., asserting that ANI’s vancomycin hydrochloride oral solution drug product infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,688,046. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, including lost profits and/or royalty, treble damages, and attorneys’ fee and costs. ANI filed its answer on August 31, 2021, and is currently engaged in discovery. ANI intends to dispute any and all liability in this case. On April 1, 2021, United Therapeutics Corp. and Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“UTC/Supernus”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., asserting that ANI's proposed Treprostinil extended release drug product, which is subject to ANI’s Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 215667, infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,417,070, 7,544,713, 8,252,839, 8,349,892, 8,410,169, 8,747,897, 9,050,311, 9,278,901, 9,393,203, 9,422,223, 9,593,066 and 9,604,901 (“the Asserted Patents”). The complaint seeks injunctive relief , attorneys' fee and costs. ANI filed its answer and counterclaims on May 28, 2021, denying UTC/Supernus’ allegations and seeking declaratory judgment that ANI has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, that the Asserted Patents are invalid, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Trial is set for May 8, 2023. Industry Related Litigation In July 2020, we were served with a complaint brought by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico against manufacturers and sellers of ranitidine products. The complaint asserts a public nuisance claim and a negligence claim against the generic ranitidine manufacturer defendants, including the Company. The public nuisance claim asserts that the widespread sale of ranitidine products in the state created a public nuisance that requires a state-wide medical monitoring program of New Mexico residents for the development of colorectal cancer, stomach cancer, gastrointestinal disorders and liver disease. As damages, New Mexico asks that the defendants fund this medical monitoring program. The negligence claims assert that the defendants were negligent in selling the product, essentially alleging that it was unreasonable to have the product on the market. With respect to that claim, New Mexico asserts that it paid for ranitidine products through state-funded insurance and health-care programs. On December 15, 2020, the case was removed to federal court and transferred to the In re Zantac multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. New Mexico moved for remand to state court. The MDL court granted the remand motion on February 25, 2021. On April 16, 2021, New Mexico filed an amended complaint in the New Mexico First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe County. It did not name ANI in the amended complaint, effectively voluntarily dismissing ANI from the action. In December 2020, the City of Baltimore served ANI with a complaint against manufacturers and sellers of ranitidine products. The City of Baltimore complaint tracks the allegations of the New Mexico complaint. The Baltimore action was removed to federal court and transferred to the In re Zantac MDL on February 1, 2021. The City of Baltimore moved for remand, which was granted on April 1, 2021. The parties stipulated to allow the City of Baltimore to file an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City in “due course,” without a specific filing deadline. On June 23, 2021, the City of Baltimore filed an amended complaint. The City of Baltimore did not name ANI in its amended complaint, effectively voluntarily dismissing ANI from the action. We dispute any liability in these matters. Product Liability Related Litigation All manufacturers of the drug Reglan and its generic equivalent metoclopramide, including ANI, have faced allegations from plaintiffs in various states claiming bodily injuries as a result of ingestion of metoclopramide or its brand name, Reglan, prior to the FDA’s February 2009 Black Box warning requirement (“legacy claims”). All these original legacy claims were settled or closed out, including a series of claims in California that were resolved by coordinated proceeding and settlement. Our insurance company assumed the defense of the legacy claims and paid all losses in settlement of the California legacy claims. In March 2019, we were served with a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, adding us as a defendant in a complaint filed in July 2017 that is alleged not to have been part of the original settled legacy claims. This new claim was dismissed with prejudice in July 2021 and the matter is now closed. In June 2020, we were served with a personal injury complaint in the case of Koepsel v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9:20-cv-80882-RLR, filed in the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida, in which the plaintiff alleges that he developed kidney cancer in 2018 as a result of taking over the counter medication containing ranitidine. The Koepsel action was filed within an existing multidistrict litigation concerning ranitidine-containing drugs pending in the Southern District of Florida before Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, In re Zantac MDL, 20 MDL 2924. A Master Personal Injury Complaint (“MPIC”) in that MDL that was filed on June 22, 2020 also named the Company as a defendant. The Company was dismissed from the Koepsel case on August 21, 2020 and was dismissed from the MPIC on September 8, 2020. On December 31, 2020, after ANI was dismissed, the district court dismissed the MPIC claims against generic manufacturer defendants partially with prejudice and partially with leave to replead. The failure to warn and design defect claims were dismissed with prejudice on preemption grounds. An Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint was filed on February 8, 2021, which does not name ANI. The Company has been named in other individual personal injury complaints filed in MDL 20 MD 2924 in which plaintiffs allege that they developed cancer after taking prescription and over the counter medication containing ranitidine. To date, the Company has been served with complaints in five of those additional cases: Cooper v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9:20-cv-81130-RLR (served September 30, 2020), Lineberry v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9:20-cv-81079-RLR (served August 20, 2020), Lovette v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9:20-cv-81040-RLR (served August 26, 2020), Hightower v. Pfizer, et al, MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9-20-cv-82214-RLR (served December 16, 2020) and Bird v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9-20-cv-80837-RLR (served December 30, 2020). We have informed counsel for the plaintiffs that we did not sell an over the counter ranitidine product and sold a generic prescription ranitidine product for a limited two-month period of time, from July 2019 to September 2019. Our product was voluntarily recalled in January 2020. Each of the plaintiffs in the five pending cases alleges a cancer diagnosis prior to the time that ANI sold ranitidine, and we have informally sought dismissal from these cases on that basis. ANI was voluntarily dismissed from the Cooper, Lineberry and Lovette actions on November 20, 2020. ANI was voluntarily dismissed from the Bird action on March 15, 2021 and from the Hightower action on March 29, 2021. After ANI had been voluntarily dismissed from all complaints served on it in the MDL, the district court dismissed all claims against the generic manufacturer defendants with prejudice on preemption grounds by opinion dated July 8, 2021. We dispute any liability in these MDL matters. Other Industry Related Matters On or about September 20, 2017, the Company and certain of its employees were served with search warrants and/or grand jury subpoenas to produce documents and possibly testify relating to a federal investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry. We have been cooperating and intend to continue cooperating with the investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation. |