Litigation | Note 13 – Litigation From time to time, the Company may be a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as Kain v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 22-cv-2105 On August 17, 2022, a putative Ampio shareholder filed a securities fraud class action against the Company, its current CEO Michael A. Martino and two former executives, Michael Macaluso and Holli Cherevka, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Kain v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. The Complaint relies largely on Ampio’s announcement on May 16, 2022, that it had formed a special Board committee to investigate the statistical analysis of Ampio’s AP-013 clinical trial and the unauthorized provision of Ampion to various individuals who were not participating in clinical trials, and Ampio’s further announcement on August 3, 2022, that the investigation had revealed that various employees were aware that the AP-013 trial did not demonstrate efficacy for Ampion’s primary endpoints and did not fully and timely report the results of the trial and the timing of unblinding data from the trial. Based on the Company’s reports, the Complaint asserts that various statements made by the Company during the Class Period were false and misleading because they: (i) inflated Ampio’s ability to successfully obtain FDA approval for Ampion; (ii) inflated the results of the AP-013 clinical trial and failed to disclose the timing of unblinding the data from the study; and (iii) overstated the Company’s business, operations and prospects. The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 17, 2022, six putative shareholders filed motions seeking to be named lead plaintiff. On November 7, 2022, of the movants filed oppositions to each other’s motions; the remaining movants either withdrew their motions or filed non-oppositions to another putative shareholder’s motion. The Court has not yet ruled on the competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff. In the interim, the Court approved the parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings, and all deadlines are deferred until after a decision on the lead plaintiff motion(s). Ampio intends to defend itself vigorously against this action. Maresca v. Martino, et al., 22-cv-2646-KLM On October 7, 2022, putative Ampio shareholder Robert Maresca filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Maresca v. Martino, et al. , 22-cv-2646-KLM. The derivative complaint, brought on behalf of the Company, asserts claims against a number of current and former executives and directors of the Company, namely Michael A. Martino, Michael Macaluso, Holli Cherevka, David Bar-Or, David Stevens, J. Kevin Buchi, Philip H. Coelho and Richard B. Giles. Based largely on the same allegations as the Kain securities fraud class action complaint (including Ampio’s reports in May and August, 2022, regarding its internal investigation and findings), the Complaint asserts that the individual defendants caused the Company to make false or misleading statements in its SEC filings by “hyp[ing Ampio’s] ability to successfully file a BLA for Ampion;” “exaggerate[ing] results of the AP-013 study;” “misstat[ing] the true timing of unblinding of data from the AP-013 study;” and “fail[ing] to maintain internal controls.” The Complaint also asserts that the defendants failed to exercise due care and comply with the Company’s policies and procedures designed to ensure Board and Audit Committee oversight of the business operations and that ethical business practices were maintained. It also contends that of the defendants (Cherevka and Coelho) sold Company stock while in possession of material non-public information at artificially inflated prices in violation of the Company’s insider trading restrictions. The Complaint asserts that the individuals should not have received compensation while violating their duties to the Company. The Complaint also alleges that the defendants caused the Company to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated prices, causing damage to the Company itself. The Complaint asserts six causes of action on behalf of the Company and against the individual defendants: (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on purportedly false and misleading statements in the Company’s proxy statements; (2) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; (3) control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) waste of corporate assets. The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and restitution damages to be paid to Ampio, together with pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as injunctive relief imposing certain corporate governance reforms and attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 2, 2022, the Company and plaintiff (together with plaintiff in a second derivative action -- the Marquis plaintiffs as co-lead counsel. That same day, the Company and plaintiff filed a stipulation providing the Company additional time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint. On January 10, 2023, after the Company received additional extensions of time to respond, the Court granted consolidation of the Maresca Marquis actions but denied appointment of co-lead counsel for plaintiffs without prejudice. On January 11, 2023, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for appointment of co-lead counsel. On January 12, 2023, the Court granted the renewed motion and appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. On January 17, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulated motion seeking a temporary stay of the consolidated derivative actions, subject to various conditions, until the earlier of: (1) the dismissal of the Kain Kain action; or (3) another derivative action being filed that is not stayed for the same duration. On January 25, 2023, the Court granted the motion for temporary stay. Accordingly, all deadlines are deferred until the stay is terminated. Ampio intends to defend itself vigorously against this action. Marquis v. Martino, et al., 22-cv-2803-KLM On October 25, 2022, putative shareholder Samantha Marquis filed a derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Marquis v. Martino, et al., 22-cv-2803-KLM. The Complaint, filed on behalf of Ampio, asserts that various current and former officers and directors of Ampio – namely, Michael Martino, Michael Macaluso, Holli Cherevka, David Bar-Or, David Stevens, Kevin Buchi, Philip Coelho, and Richard Giles, breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers and violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by causing the Company to file false and misleading proxy statements. The Complaint focuses on the Company’s alleged failure to timely report that the results of the AP-013 trial for Ampion were unfavorable, failing to show efficacy on the co-primary endpoints of pain and function, and the Company’s alleged failure to disclose the results of and timing of unblinding the study data. The Complaint asserts that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making or causing the Company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding Ampio’s business, operations and prospects and by failing to maintain adequate internal controls. Based on these allegations, the Complaint asserts causes of action on behalf of the Company: (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against all defendants other than Cherevka; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty against all defendants. Based on these claims, the Complaint seeks judgment in favor of the Company and against the individual defendants in an unspecified amount of compensatory and restitution damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interest and costs of the action including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees as well as a mandatory injunction requiring Ampio and the defendants to reform and improve the corporate governance and internal controls of the Company. On November 2, 2022, the Company and plaintiff (together with plaintiff in the previously filed Maresca On January 10, 2023, the Court granted consolidation of the Maresca Marquis actions but denied appointment of co-lead counsel for plaintiffs without prejudice. On January 11, 2023, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for appointment of co-lead counsel. On January 12, 2023, the Court granted the renewed motion and appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. On January 17, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulated motion seeking a temporary stay of the consolidated derivative actions, subject to various conditions, until the earlier of: (1) the dismissal of the Kain Kain action; or (3) another derivative action being filed that is not stayed for the same duration. On January 25, 2023, the Court granted the motion for temporary stay. Accordingly, all deadlines are deferred until the stay is terminated. Ampio intends to defend itself vigorously against this action. McCann v. Martino, et al On January 27, 2023, putative shareholder John McCann filed a derivative complaint in the District Court, City & County of Denver, State of Colorado, captioned McCann v. Martino et al ., 2023cv30287. The Complaint, filed on behalf of Ampio, asserts that various current and former officers and directors of Ampio – namely, Michael Martino, J. Kevin Buchi, David Stevens, Elizabeth Jobes, Holli Cherevka, David Bar-Or, Philip H. Coelho, and Richard B. Giles, breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers by allowing the Company to issue false and misleading statements, The Complaint focuses on the Company’s alleged failure to timely report that the results of the AP-013 trial for Ampion were unfavorable, failing to show efficacy on the co-primary endpoints of pain and function, and the Company’s alleged failure to disclose the results of and timing of unblinding the study data. The Complaint asserts that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding Ampio’s business, operations and prospects and by failing to maintain adequate internal controls. Based on these allegations, the Complaint asserts five causes of action on behalf of the Company: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the current directors; (2) gross mismanagement against the current directors; (3) waste of corporate assets against the current directors; (4) unjust enrichment against all defendants; and (5) breach of fiduciary duty by insider trading against defendants Cherevka and Coelho. Based on these claims, the Complaint seeks judgment in favor of the Company and against the individual defendants in an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, costs of the action including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees as well as a mandatory injunction requiring Ampio to reform and improve the corporate governance and internal procedures of the Company. Defendant Cherevka was served and by order dated February 9, 2023, obtained an extension of time to respond to the Complaint through March 31, 2023. On March 2, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulated motion seeking a temporary stay of the action, subject to various conditions, until the earlier of: (1) the dismissal of the Kain Kain action; or (3) another derivative action being filed that is not stayed for the same duration. On March 3, 2023, the Court granted the motion for temporary stay. Accordingly, all deadlines are deferred until the stay is terminated. Ampio intends to defend itself vigorously against this action. SEC Investigation On October 12, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, entered an order directing private investigation and designating officers to take testimony to determine whether we or any other entities or persons have engaged in, or are about to engage in, any violations of the securities laws. The SEC has since issued subpoenas to the Company and numerous current and former officers, directors, employees and consultants of the Company. We intend to cooperate fully with the SEC. |