COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Leases All our existing leases as of June 30, 2022 are classified as operating leases. As of June 30, 2022, we had 13 material operating leases for facilities and office equipment with remaining terms expiring from 2022 through 2027 and a weighted average remaining lease term of 2.9 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%. Current lease liability is included in accrued expenses and other in the accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated balance sheets. Non-current lease liability is included in derivatives and other non-current liabilities in the accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated balance sheets. Rent expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021 consisted of the following: Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30, (in thousands) 2022 2021 2022 2021 Operating lease costs $ 143 $ 43 $ 269 $ 92 Variable lease costs 54 13 120 21 Total lease costs $ 197 $ 56 $ 389 $ 113 A maturity analysis of our operating leases follows: (in thousands) Future payments: 2022 $ 251 2023 482 2024 468 2025 248 2026 and thereafter 126 Total $ 1,575 Discount (163) Lease liability 1,412 Current lease liability (413) Non-current lease liability $ 999 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 Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), Health Canada, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (“CDSCO”), The Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”), and India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (“MoHFW”). The FDA, in particular, maintains oversight of the formulation, manufacture, distribution, packaging, and labeling of all of our products. The DEA, Health Canada, and NCB 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 ANDAs. During the three months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, net revenues for these products totaled $2.9 million and $4.2 million, respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, net revenues for these products totaled $6.9 million and $8.0 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 June 30, 2022 and 2021 were $0.4 million and $0.6 million, respectively. Our contract manufacturing revenues for the group of unapproved products for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021 were $1.1 million and $1.4 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 many 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 alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaints did 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 sought injunctive relief, damages, including lost profits and/or royalty, treble damages, and attorneys’ fee and costs. On February 15, 2022, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Azurity to resolve all claims related to this action. Under the terms of the agreement, Azurity granted ANI a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, royalty-bearing license under its Patents to sell ANI product in the United States and dismissed the action with prejudice. In exchange, we paid Azurity 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. On May 26, 2022, the parties’ respective claims and counterclaims were dismissed pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. Industry Related Litigation In July 2020, ANI and Novitium were served with a complaint brought in the First Judicial Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico 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 ANI and Novitium. 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. Novitium is named as a Defendant in the amended complaint. According to Novitium’s records, Novitium sold approximately 42 bottles of ranitidine indirectly into New Mexico, and received no funds from any state funded health care plan or Medicaid. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted in the New Mexico litigation based primarily on preemption. The motion was denied in August 2021. In December 2020, the City of Baltimore served ANI and Novitium with a complaint against manufacturers and sellers of ranitidine products. The City of Baltimore complaint, which was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, 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. Novitium was named as a defendant in the amended complaint. Defendants in the Baltimore action filed a motion to dismiss on based primarily on preemption to which Novitium joined. The motion was granted as to all generic manufacturer defendants on January 28, 2022, and all claims against Novitium were dismissed with prejudice. The deadline for the City of Baltimore to file an appeal was February 28, 2022. ANI and Novitium 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, ANI was served with a personal injury complaint in the case of Koepsel v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al. Koepsel In re Zantac MDL 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 did not name ANI but did name Novitium. By opinion dated July 8, 2021, the district court dismissed all claims against the generic manufacturer defendants with prejudice on preemption grounds. That decision is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. ANI and Novitium were 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. ANI was served with complaints in five of those additional cases: Cooper v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al. Lineberry v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al. Lovette v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al. Hightower v. Pfizer, et al, Bird v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al. Cooper Lovette Bird Hightower Novitium has been named in 155 short form complaints filed by claimants in the MDL. Those complaints were effectively dismissed with prejudice with the MPIC on July 8, 2021. Counsel for the plaintiffs have been notified that Novitium did not sell an over the counter ranitidine product and sold a generic prescription ranitidine product for a limited period of time, from December 2018 until September 2019. Novitium’s product was voluntarily recalled in October 2019. Out of the 155 short form complaints, approximately 111 plaintiffs either were diagnosed with cancer before Novitium began manufacturing the product, only took over the counter ranitidine, or took ranitidine before Novitium began manufacturing it. Two of those 111 plaintiffs dismissed Novitium from their short form complaints. In light of the Court’s dismissal of all claims with prejudice, Novitium has not pursued dismissal of the short form complaints against it at this time. On February 3, 2022, a complaint was filed in Cook County, Illinois, naming Novitium as a defendant. The complaint incorrectly identifies Novitium as a “repackager.” The case is styled Ross v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al ANI and Novitium 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. |