The fair value of stock option awards is estimated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The determination of fair value using the Black-Scholes model is affected by the Company’s ADS price as well as assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables, including expected ADS price volatility, risk-free interest rate, expected dividends and projected employee stock option exercise behaviors.
The Company estimates its stock price volatility using a combination of historical stock price volatility and the average implied volatility of options traded in the open market. The risk-free interest rate assumption is based on observed interest rates for the appropriate term of the Company’s stock options. The Company has never declared or paid dividends and has no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. The expected option life assumption is estimated using the simplified method prescribed by ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation, and is based on the mid-point between vest date and expiration date since the Company does not have sufficient exercise history to estimate expected option life of historical grants.
The table below summarizes the total share-based compensation expense included in the Company’s statements of operations for the periods presented:
| | | | | | | | |
| | Three Months Ended March 31, | |
| | 2021 | | | 2020 | |
| | (in thousands) | |
Research and development | | $ | 4,187 | | | $ | 2,299 | |
Sales, general and administrative | | | 12,644 | | | | 8,260 | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | $ | 16,831 | | | $ | 10,559 | |
| | | | | | | | |
For the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, $1.0 million and $0.8 million of share-based compensation related to manufacturing operations was capitalized into inventory, respectively.
Note 8: Commitments and Contingencies
As of March 31, 2021, the Company was not a party to any material legal proceedings except as follows: In 2007, the Company entered into a research collaboration agreement with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Otsuka, which expired in June 2013. Otsuka has contacted the Company to assert that it is owed royalty payments under the agreement up to 2% of Epidiolex net sales. While the Company believes Otsuka’s position is without merit, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter and cannot provide assurances that the Company will be successful, in whole or in part, in its efforts.
On December 23, 2020, Canopy Growth Corporation filed suit against us in the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,870,632. Canopy alleges that the process we used to make the crude cannabinoid extract that is used to make Epidiolex is within the scope of its patent. We dispute Canopy’s claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously.
Since the initial filing of the Company’s proxy statement related to the Jazz Transaction (the Proxy Statement), the following 11 complaints have been filed in federal courts in California, New York and Pennsylvania by purported shareholders of the Company against GW and the members of GW’s board of directors, and in one instance against Jazz and Bidco, in connection with the Jazz transaction: Farrell v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02344 (filed March 17, 2021) (S.D.N.Y.), Hinton v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02379 (filed March 18, 2021) (S.D.N.Y.), Brady v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02382 (filed March 18, 2021) (S.D.N.Y.), Warren v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02536 (filed March 24, 2021) (S.D.N.Y.), Goodman v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01574 (filed March 25, 2021) (E.D.N.Y.), Kent v. GW Pharmaceuticals, plc, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00530 (filed March 26, 2021) (S.D. Cal.), Coffman v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00537 (filed March 26, 2021) (S.D. Cal.), Shubitowski v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02668 (filed March 29, 2021) (S.D.N.Y.), Hurlbut v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01500 (filed March 30, 2021) (E.D. Pa.), Olesky v. GW Pharmaceuticals, plc, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02741 (filed March 31, 2021) (S.D.N.Y.), and Ochoa v. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00580 (filed April 2, 2021) (S.D. Cal.) (collectively, the Federal Shareholder Litigation). Each of the complaints in the Federal Shareholder Litigation includes allegations that, among other things, the Proxy Statement omitted certain material information in connection with the Jazz transaction in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and one of those complaints also purports to allege claims that the members of GW’s board of directors breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Jazz transaction, and that GW, Jazz and Bidco aided and abetted those alleged breaches. An additional lawsuit, filed in state court in New York, alleged misrepresentation and concealment claims under New York common law relating to the Proxy Statement: Levy v. Guy, et al., Case No. 603237/2021 (filed March 17, 2021) (N.Y. Sup. Nassau Cty.).
13