15. Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings
The Company is involved in various disputes, legal proceedings and litigation in the course of its business, including the matters described below and, from time to time, governmental inquiries and investigations and employment and other litigation. These matters, which could result in damages, fines or other administrative, civil or criminal remedies, liabilities or penalties, are often complex and the outcome of such matters is often uncertain. The Company may from time to time enter into settlements to resolve such matters.
Shareholder Litigation
The Company currently is involved in a purported shareholder class action lawsuit, as well as a related derivative suit. While the Company believes that it has a number of valid defenses to the claims of the litigants, and intends to vigorously defend itself, matters are in early stages of litigation, and no assessment can be made as to likely outcomes or whether these matters will be material to the Company. Accordingly, an estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss, if any, to the Company relating to these matters is not possible at this time.
The 2017 Litigation
On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On June 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and on July 31, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company’s public disclosures during that period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing and use, and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company’s operations, financial performance, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27, 2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company. On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that the proposed second amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint. On October 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on January 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an appellate brief challenging the March 27, 2020 judgment, the September 9, 2020 judgment, and other court orders. On April 23, 2021, the Company filed a response brief in the Second Circuit appellate proceeding. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a reply brief. On December 9, 2021, oral argument was held in the Second Circuit. On June 16, 2022, the Second Circuit entered a summary order affirming the order of the District Court dated September 9, 2020.
Separately, on December 1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was made on the Company based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case above. Also, on January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Davis v. Pruzanski, et al., was filed in New York state court by shareholder Gregg Davis based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case above. The derivative litigation is presently stayed pending the exhaustion of all appeals relating to the dismissal of the securities case.
Patent Litigation
The Company has received paragraph IV certification notice letters from six generic drug manufacturers indicating that each such manufacturer submitted to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the Company’s 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva® (obeticholic acid)