Commitments and Contingencies | 8. Commitments and Contingencies Shareholder Class Actions and Derivative Lawsuits Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the “Nevada District Court”) against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in certain press releases and other public statements in violation of the federal securities laws and seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any obligation to respond to the complaints then on file, and providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended complaint to be filed by a lead plaintiff(s) to be appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff (“Plaintiff’). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) on May 8, 2015. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the “Class Action Individual Defendants”) violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. The Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual Defendants and one of the Company’s shareholders face liability for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on June 26, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the putative class action with prejudice and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the dismissal order and final judgment. The appeal is fully briefed and is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On August 1 and 25, 2014, persons claiming to be Galectin shareholders filed putative shareholder derivative complaints in the Nevada District Court, seeking recovery on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s directors and officers. On September 10, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order consolidating the two cases, relieving the defendants of any obligation to respond to the initial complaints, and providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated complaint to be filed by the plaintiffs. On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the consolidated putative derivative litigation to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (hereinafter referred to as the “Georgia Federal Derivative Action.”) The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 27, 2015. On April 6, 2015, the Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Rather than respond to those motions, the plaintiffs sought and obtained leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint (the “Complaint”) on May 26, 2015. The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s directors and officers (the “Derivative Action Individual Defendants”) breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s shareholders by causing or permitting the Company to make allegedly false and misleading public statements concerning the Company’s financial and business prospects. The Complaint also alleges that the Derivative Action Individual Defendants violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making false or misleading statements of material fact in the Company’s proxy filings, committed waste of corporate assets, were unjustly enriched, and that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duties through allegedly improper sales of Galectin stock. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Derivative Action Individual Defendants and one of the Company’s shareholders aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the Company, corporate governance reforms, disgorgement of profits, benefits and compensation by the defendants, costs, and attorneys ‘and experts’ fees. The Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint on July 8, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the Georgia Federal Derivative Action with prejudice and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the dismissal order and final judgment. On July 7, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as the Plaintiffs failed to timely file their appeal brief. On August 29, 2014, another alleged Galectin shareholder filed a putative shareholder derivative complaint in state court in Las Vegas, Nevada, seeking recovery on behalf of the Company against the same Galectin directors and officers who are named as defendants in the derivative litigation pending in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action. The plaintiff in the Nevada action subsequently filed first and second amended complaints. The second amended complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action (except that the Nevada action does not allege violations of the federal securities laws and does not assert any claim against the Galectin shareholder named as a defendant in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action), and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the Company, corporate governance reforms, disgorgement of profits, benefits and compensation by the defendants, costs, and attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 22, 2015. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action (the “Intervenor Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to intervene in the Nevada action which, among other things, raised questions regarding the Nevada plaintiff’s standing. Thereafter, the Nevada plaintiff filed a motion to join additional plaintiffs. At a hearing held on June 11, 2015, the Nevada court: (i) granted the Intervenor Plaintiffs’ motion to intervene; (ii) directed the Intervenor Plaintiffs to file a complaint in intervention; (iii) directed the Nevada plaintiff to file a motion for leave to file a further amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs; (iv) stated that the defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint were denied “at this point;” (v) ordered the Nevada action stayed until December 11 , 2015; and (vi) directed the parties to submit a status report on December 11, 2015, updating the court on the progress and status of the Georgia Federal Derivative Action. On July 9, 2015, pursuant to the Nevada State Court’s instruction, the Intervenor Plaintiffs filed a complaint-in-intervention in Nevada State Court, asserting similar claims to the ones they alleged in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action described above. On December 11, 2015, further to the Nevada State Court’s instruction, the parties submitted status reports detailing the status of the Georgia Federal Derivative Action. On January 5, 2016, the Nevada State Court held a status conference during which the dismissal of the Georgia Federal Derivative Action was discussed. Subsequent to that conference, on January 19, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Nevada State Court litigation based on the dismissal of the similar Georgia Federal Derivative Action, among other grounds. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully briefed to the Nevada court in February 2016. At a hearing on March 3, 2016, the Nevada State Court granted dismissal of the Nevada State Court litigation pending entry of a final order of dismissal. The Nevada State Court issued its order of dismissal on April 1, 2016. Defendants thereafter filed a motion requesting that the Nevada State Court correct certain language in the dismissal order. In an order dated June 10, 2016, the Nevada State Court denied Defendants’ motion seeking correction of certain language in the dismissal order. On June 21, 2016, Notice of Entry of the Nevada State Court’s order dismissing the Nevada State Court litigation was docketed. The Nevada plaintiff and Intervenor Plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal seeking review of the Nevada State Court’s dismissal order. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages, are in the early stages of the proceedings, and are subject to appeal. In addition, because most legal proceedings are resolved over extended periods of time, potential losses are subject to change due to, among other things, new developments, changes in legal strategy, the outcome of intermediate procedural and substantive rulings and other parties’ settlement posture and their evaluation of the strength or weakness of their case against us. For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from, the matters described above. Based on information currently available, the Company does not believe that any reasonably possible losses arising from currently pending legal matters will be material to the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in such matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could materially and adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Other Legal Proceedings The Company records accruals for such contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that their occurrence is probable and the related damages are estimable. There are no other pending legal proceedings except as noted above. |