Litigation | 10. Litigation Savant Litigation On February 29, 2016, the Company entered into a binding letter of intent (the “LOI”) with Savant Neglected Diseases, LLC (“Savant”). The LOI provided that the Company would acquire certain worldwide rights relating to benznidazole from Savant. On June 30, 2016, the Company and Savant entered into an Agreement for the Manufacture, Development and Commercialization of Benznidazole for Human Use (the “MDC Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company acquired certain worldwide rights relating to benznidazole. The MDC Agreement consummates the transactions contemplated by the LOI. In addition, on June 30, 2016, the Company and Savant also entered into a Security Agreement (the “Security Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company granted Savant a continuing senior security interest in the assets and rights acquired by the Company pursuant to the MDC Agreement and certain future assets developed from those acquired assets. On June 30, 2016, in connection with the MDC Agreement, the Company issued to Savant a five-year warrant to purchase 40,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, at an exercise price of $11.25 per share, subject to adjustment. On May 26, 2017, the Company submitted its benznidazole Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”) to the FDA which became effective on June 26, 2017. The Company recorded expense of $1.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2017 as Research and development expense related to the milestone achievement associated with the IND being declared effective. On July 10, 2017, FDA notified the Company that it granted Orphan Drug Designation to benznidazole for the treatment of Chagas disease. The Company recorded expense of $1.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2017 as Research and development expense related to the milestone achievement associated with Orphan Drug Designation. The $2.0 million in milestone payments due Savant are included in Accrued expenses in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020. On July 10, 2017, the Company filed a complaint against Savant in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware, New Castle County (the “Delaware Court”). KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Savant Neglected Diseases, LLC On July 12, 2017, Savant removed the case to the Bankruptcy Court, claiming that the action is related to or arises under the Bankruptcy Case from which the Company emerged in July 2016. In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On August 2, 2017, Savant sent a foreclosure notice to the Company, demanding that it provide the Collateral as defined in the Security Agreement for inspection and possession on August 9, 2017, with a public sale to be held on September 1, 2017. The Company moved for a Temporary Restraining Order (the “TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction in the Bankruptcy Court on August 4, 2017. Savant responded on August 7, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company’s motion for a TRO, entering an order prohibiting Savant from collecting on or selling the Collateral, entering our premises, issuing any default notices to us, or attempting to exercise any other remedies under the MDC Agreement or the Security Agreement. On August 9, 2017, the parties have stipulated to continue the provisions of the TRO in full force and effect until further order of the appropriate court, which the Bankruptcy Court signed that same day (the “Stipulated Order”). On January 22, 2018, Savant wrote to the Bankruptcy Court requesting dissolution of the TRO and the Stipulated Order. On January 29, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Motion to Remand and denied Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order, ordering that any request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order be made to the Delaware Court. On February 13, 2018 Savant made a letter request to the Delaware Court to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order. Also, on February 13, 2018, the Company filed its Answer and Affirmative defenses to Savant’s Counterclaims. On February 15, 2018 the Company filed a letter of opposition to Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order and requesting a status conference. A hearing on Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order was held before the Delaware Court on March 19, 2018. The Delaware Court denied Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated order, which remain in effect. On April 11, 2018, the Company advised the Delaware Court that it would meet and confer with Savant regarding a proposed case management order and date for trial. On April 26, 2018 the Delaware Court so-ordered a proposed case management order submitted by the Company and Savant. The schedule in the case management order was modified by stipulation on August 24, 2018. On April 8, 2019, the Company moved to compel Savant to produce documents in response to the Company’s document requests. The parties thereafter agreed to a discovery schedule through June 30, 2019, which the Superior Court so ordered, and the parties produced documents to each other. On June 4, 2019, Savant filed a complaint against the Company and Madison Joint Venture LLC (“Madison”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Action”) seeking to “recover as damages that amounts owed to it under the MDC Agreement, and to reclaim Savant’s intellectual property,” among other things. Savant also requested leave to move to dismiss the Company’s complaint on the grounds that the Company’s transfer of assets to Madison was champertous. On June 10, 2019, the Company requested by letter that the Superior Court hold a contempt hearing because the Chancery Action violated the TRO entered by the Bankruptcy Court, the terms of which have been extended by stipulation of the parties. On June 18, 2019, the Superior Court held a telephonic status conference. The parties agreed that the Chancery Action should be consolidated with the Superior Court action, after which the Superior Court would address the parties’ motions. On July 22, 2019, the Company moved for contempt against Savant. Savant filed its opposition on July 29, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Superior Court denied the Company’s motion for contempt. On July 23, 2019, Savant moved for summary judgment on the issue of champerty. The Company filed its response and cross-motion for summary judgment on August 27, 2019. Savant filed its reply on September 10, 2019 and the Company filed its cross-reply on September 20, 2019. The motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. On August 17, 2020 the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion denying Savant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of champerty. On July 26, 2019, the Company moved to modify the previously agreed-upon discovery schedule to extend discovery through December 31, 2019, which the Superior Court granted. In subsequent orders, the discovery schedule was further extended until the end of June 2020. On July 30, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Savant’s Chancery Action. Savant filed an amended complaint on September 4, 2019, and the Company filed its opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss on October 11, 2019. That motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. On August 17, 2020 the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the Company’s motion to dismiss Savant’s Chancery Action. On August 19, 2019, Savant moved to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint. On September 27, 2019, the Company filed an opposition to Savant’s motion and, in the alternative, requested leave to file a second amended complaint against Savant. Savant consented to the filing of the second amended complaint and withdrew their motion to dismiss. Savant filed a partial motion to dismiss against a co-defendant on October 30, 2019. That motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. At the February 3, 2020 hearing, the Court reserved judgment on the parties’ reciprocal motions. On August 17, 2020, the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion granting in part and denying in part Savant’s motion to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint. The Superior Court found the Company lacked standing because it assigned its interest to its co-plaintiff Madison. However, the Superior Court found that Madison had standing to proceed. Although the Company was dismissed from all counts of the Superior Court Action it continues to possess an interest in the Superior Court Action because of its ownership of Madison and remains a litigant because of Savant’s Chancery Action. Savant’s motion to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint was denied in all other respects. On May 22, 2020, upon the request of the parties, the Superior Court stayed both Delaware actions until July 29, 2020. On June 30, 2020, Savant exercised 20,000 warrants in a cashless exercise resulting in 10,909 shares being issued to Savant. On July 24, 2020, the parties submitted a joint status report in the Delaware actions. The parties also requested a status conference with the Court to discuss moving the trial from October 2020 to some later time. On August 20, 2020, the Court held the requested status conference and ordered that a consolidated trial for the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action would be held in April 2021. The parties subsequently agreed to a five-day trial starting on April 12, 2021. On September 29, 2020, upon the request of the parties, the Superior Court revised the existing discovery schedule. Under the revised discovery schedule fact discovery closed on November 9, 2020 and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2020. On October 7, 2020, Savant moved for leave to amend its complaint in the Chancery Action to add a claim for breach of contract related to its exercise of 20,000 warrants on June 30, 2020. Savant claims that the Company’s issuance of 10,909 shares was insufficient under the warrant. On November 23, 2020, the Superior Court granted Savant’s motion for leave to amend its complaint in the Chancery Action. The Company answered the second amended complaint in the Chancery Action on December 11, 2020. On November 30, 2020, the Superior Court revised the discovery schedule to permit the Company to take additional discovery regarding Savant’s second amended complaint in the Chancery Action. Under this revised schedule, the Company had until December 18, 2020 to take additional discovery. Further, the deadline to complete expert discovery was moved to January 5, 2021. A consolidated trial for the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action remained scheduled for April 2021. On December 18, 2020, fact discovery closed. On January 5, 2021, the Company moved for leave to amend the Superior Court complaint to add Scott Freeman as a defendant. Savant opposed the motion for leave to amend on February 5, 2021. Briefing was completed on March 5, 2021. Further, the deadline for expert discovery closed. On January 19, 2021, the Company and Savant filed competing motions for summary judgment on their respective claims in the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action. Oppositions to the motions for summary judgment were filed on February 5, 2021 and replies were filed on February 24, 2021. On March 18, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the summary judgment motions and the Company’s motion for leave to amend. The Court reserved decision on the summary judgment motions, denied the Company’s motion for leave to amend and postponed the April 2021 trial. The Company is awaiting the Court’s availability to proceed with trial. Private Placement Litigation On June 15, 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company and Dr. Durrant in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case caption is Alliance Texas Holdings, LLC et al. v. Humanigen, Inc. et al. The Company believes that the claims made in the Alliance Texas Holdings Case are without merit, and it is prepared to defend itself vigorously. On April 19, 2021, the Company and Noble entered into a confidential settlement agreement in respect of a separate lawsuit brought by Noble related to the Private Placement (the “Noble Case”) captioned Noble Capital Markets, Inc. v. Humanigen, Inc., Case No. 9:20-CV-81131-WPD, pursuant to which the Noble Case was dismissed with prejudice. |