Commitments and Contingencies | 15. Commitments and Contingencies Royalty and License Fee Commitments We have entered into certain license agreements, as identified in Note 13, License Agreements , with third parties that include the payment of development and regulatory milestones, as well as royalty payments, upon the achievement of pre-established development, regulatory and commercial targets. Our payment obligation related to these license agreements is contingent upon the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of the licensed products. Due to the nature of these arrangements, the future potential payments are inherently uncertain, and accordingly, we only recognize payment obligations which are probable and estimable as of the balance sheet date. Manufacture and Services Agreement Commitments On October 3, 2016, we entered into a Manufacturing and Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) with a non-exclusive third-party supplier for the production of the active ingredient for Rubraca. Under the terms of the Agreement, we will provide the third-party supplier a rolling forecast for the supply of the active ingredient in Rubraca that will be updated by us on a quarterly basis. We are obligated to order material sufficient to satisfy an initial quantity specified in any forecast. In addition, the third-party supplier will construct, in its existing facility, a production train that will be exclusively dedicated to the manufacture of the Rubraca active ingredient. We are obligated to make scheduled capital program fee payments toward capital equipment and other costs associated with the construction of the dedicated production train. Further, once the facility is operational, we are obligated to pay a fixed facility fee each quarter for the duration of the Agreement, which expires on December 31, 2025, unless extended by mutual consent of the parties. As of March 31, 2019, $102.5 million of purchase commitments exist under the Agreement. At the time we entered into the Agreement, we evaluated the Agreement as a whole and bifurcated into lease and non-lease components, which consisted of an operating lease of warehouse space, capital lease of equipment, purchase of leasehold improvements and manufacturing costs based upon the relative fair values of each of the deliverables. During October 2018, the production train was placed into service and we recorded the various components of the Agreement. Legal Proceedings We and certain of our officers were named as defendants in several lawsuits, as described below. We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can we estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, that may result. An adverse outcome in these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Rociletinib-Related Litigation Following Clovis’ regulatory announcement in November 2015 of adverse developments in its ongoing clinical trials for rociletinib, Clovis and certain of its current and former executives were named in various securities lawsuits, the largest of which was a putative class action lawsuit in the District of Colorado (the “Medina Action”) which was settled on October 26, 2017 (the “Medina Settlement”). The open actions currently pending against Clovis are discussed below. On November 10, 2016, Antipodean Domestic Partners (“Antipodean”) filed a complaint (the “Antipodean Complaint”) against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters in New York Supreme Court, County of New York. The Antipodean Complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain sections of the Securities Act by making allegedly false statements to Antipodean and in the offering materials for the July 2015 Offering relating to the efficacy of rociletinib, its safety profile, and its prospects for market success. In addition to the Securities Act claims, the Antipodean Complaint also asserts Colorado state law claims and common law claims. Both the state law and common law claims are based on allegedly false and misleading statements regarding rociletinib’s progress toward FDA approval. The Antipodean Complaint seeks compensatory, recessionary, and punitive damages. On December 15, 2016, the Antipodean Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the “Antipodean Amended Complaint”) asserting substantially the same claims against the same defendants and purporting to correct certain details in the original Antipodean Complaint. Following a stay that Justice Masley of the New York Supreme Court, County of New York entered in favor of the Medina Action and briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss, the parties participated in a Preliminary Conference on April 17, 2018, following which the Court entered a preliminary conference order, providing deadlines for document productions, depositions, and other discovery. On May 2, 2018, the Court issued an order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the Antipodean Amended Complaint on June 6, 2018. Subject to certain specified exceptions, fact discovery was completed on March 1, 2019. The current scheduling order provides for an expert-discovery deadline of June 21, 2019. The Court has scheduled a status conference for June 4, 2019, following which the Court anticipates issuing a revised scheduling order. Clovis and the Antipodean Plaintiffs are scheduled to participate in a mediation on May 20, 2019 in an effort to settle the Antipodean action. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached. If a settlement cannot be reached, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Antipodean Amended Complaint. However, there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. As required under ASC 450, “Contingencies’, the Company accrues for contingencies when it believes that a loss is probable and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. The Company has not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the Antipodean litigation based on its belief that a potential loss is reasonably possible, but that any possible range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In March 2017, two putative shareholders of the Company, Macalinao and McKenry (the “Derivative Plaintiffs”), filed shareholder derivative complaints against certain directors and officers of the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On May 4, 2017, the Macalinao and McKenry actions were consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding under the caption In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No, 2017-0222 (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On May 18, 2017, the Derivative Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the “Consolidated Derivative Complaint”). The Consolidated Derivative Complaint generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company by allegedly causing or allowing misrepresentations of the Company’s business operations and prospects, failing to ensure that the TIGER-X clinical trial was being conducted in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and protocols, and engaging in insider trading. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint purported to rely on documents produced by the Company in response to prior demands for inspection of the Company’s books and records served on the Company by each of Macalinao and McKenry under 8 Del. C. § 220. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint sought, among other things, an award of money damages. On July 31, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 31, 2017, and the defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2017. While the motion to dismiss remained pending, on November 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental consolidated complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the Court granted that motion. On November 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental complaint (the “Supplemental Derivative Complaint”), which adds allegations concerning the Company’s, Mr. Mahaffy’s and Mr. Mast’s settlements with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Pursuant to a briefing schedule entered by the Court, the defendants filed a supplemental motion to dismiss the Supplemental Derivative Complaint on February 6, 2019; plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on February 22, 2019; and the defendants filed a reply brief on March 5, 2019. Oral argument on the defendants’ motions to dismiss has been rescheduled for June 19, 2019. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Supplemental Derivative Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. On March 20, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the “Guo Complaint”) against certain officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Guo Complaint generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company by either recklessly or with gross negligence approving or permitting misrepresentations of the Company’s business operations and prospects. The Guo Complaint also alleged claims for waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Finally, the Guo Complaint alleged that certain of the individual defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, by allegedly negligently issuing, causing to be issued, and participating in the issuance of materially misleading statements to stockholders in the Company’s Proxy Statement on Schedule DEF 14A in connection with the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, held on June 11, 2015. The Guo Complaint sought, among other things, an award of money damages. On June 19, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the Guo action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Complaint. On June 20, 2017, the court granted the motion to stay. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Guo Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. European Patent Opposition Two oppositions were filed in the granted European counterpart of the rucaparib camsylate salt/polymorph patent on June 20, 2017. The European Patent Office’s Opposition Division held an oral hearing on December 4, 2018, during which it upheld claims, narrowed from the originally granted patent, to certain crystalline forms of rucaparib camsylate, including, but not limited to, rucaparib S-camsylate Form A, the crystalline form in Rubraca. On February 4, 2019, the Opposition Division issued a written decision confirming its decision at the oral hearing. Clovis and/or either opponent have an opportunity to appeal the written decision of the European Opposition Division. Notices of appeal were filed before April 14, 2019 by Clovis and one of the opponents, Hexal, and appeal briefs are due June 14, 2019. |