Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court for the Southern District of NY”), captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545 (the “Securities Action”). Subsequently, the Court for the Southern District of NY appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the Securities Action. On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Company, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and the Company’s former Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, (collectively, the “Defendants”). The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company’s investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 14, 2017. On March 29, 2018, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in their claims. On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Defendants. Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements or omissions relating to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L that caused losses to the Company’s investors. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed the case. On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July 2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was held on October 21, 2019. In an opinion dated July 13, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the second amended complaint in part, vacated the district court’s dismissal of the second amended complaint in part, and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. On August 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a Petition for Rehearing en banc requesting reconsideration of portions of the opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Petition on September 8, 2020 and issued a mandate to the Court for the Southern District of NY on September 15, 2020. On December 16, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in principle to fully resolve the Securities Action, and on February 1, 2021, a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed in the Court for the Southern District of NY. On February 25, 2021, the Court for the Southern District of NY denied the motion for preliminary approval and directed the parties to re-submit the motion with certain revisions. On March 24, 2021, the parties re-submitted the motion for preliminary approval, which the Court for the Southern District of NY granted on April 2, 2021. The parties’ agreement provides in part for a $13.5 million settlement payment in exchange for the dismissal and a release of all claims against the Defendants in connection with the Securities Action. The terms of the settlement and the final plan of allocation of settlement proceeds was approved by the Court for the Southern District of NY on September 22, 2021. On that date, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the Securities Action with prejudice and released all of the claims against the Defendants in connection with the Securities Action. The full amount of the settlement payment was paid by the Company’s insurance provider under its insurance policy. On or about April 26, 2017, Ronald Morrow filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the Court for the Southern District of NY, against the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., the Company’s former Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, and the Company directors Thomas A. Raffin, Joseph Saluri, Ernest J. Talarico, III, Paul R. Edick, Paolo Pucci, and Lota S. Zoth (collectively, the “Morrow Defendants”), captioned Morrow v. Link., et al., Case 1:17-cv-03039 (the “Morrow Action”). The complaint alleges that the Morrow Defendants caused the Company to issue false statements in its 2016 proxy statement regarding risk management and compensation matters in violation of federal securities laws. The complaint also asserts state law claims against the Morrow Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, insider trading, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, alleging that the Morrow Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L, awarded themselves excessive compensation, engaged in illegal insider trading, and grossly mismanaged the Company. The plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in the complaint but seeks restitution for damages to the Company, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, as well as an order directing that proposals for strengthening board oversight be put to a vote of Company’s shareholders. The language for such proposals is not specified in the complaint. The plaintiff also contemporaneously filed a statement of relatedness, informing the Court for the Southern District of NY that the Morrow Action is related to the Securities Action. On May 19, 2017, the plaintiff dismissed the Morrow Action without prejudice. Also on May 19, 2017, plaintiffs’ counsel in the Morrow Action filed a new shareholder derivative complaint that is substantively identical to the Morrow Action, except that the plaintiff is Rickey Ely. The latter action is captioned Ely v. Link, et al., Case 17-cv-3799 (the “Ely Action”). By agreement of the parties and orders dated June 26, 2017 and March 20, 2019, the Court for the Southern District of NY temporarily stayed the Ely Action until the Securities Action is dismissed or otherwise finally resolved. On December 11, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in principle to resolve the substantive claims asserted in the Ely Action, and on February 26, 2021, the Company reached an agreement with the plaintiff with respect to an award for plaintiff’s counsel’s attorneys’ fees and expenses in the total amount of $375,000. In addition to this award for fees and expenses, the parties' agreement provides for the adoption and/or enactment of certain corporate governance reforms at both the Board of Directors and management levels, in exchange for the dismissal and a release of all claims against the Defendants in connection with the Ely Action. On June 3, 2021, a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed in the Court for the Southern District of NY. On August 10, 2021, the Court for the Southern District of NY granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Thereafter, the full amount of the fees and expenses award was paid by the Company’s insurance provider under its insurance policy. |