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. The Court held oral arguments on the defendants’ motions to dismiss on June 19, 2019. At the oral arguments, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs on the motion to dismiss.
On October 1, 2019, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III of the Delaware Chancery Court, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Supplemental Derivative Complaint was dismissed as to Plaintiffs’ derivative claims for unjust enrichment and insider trading. The Court allowed Plaintiffs’ remaining derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty to proceed. Defendants filed an answer to the Supplemental Derivative Complaint on December 27, 2019.
On December 17, 2019, the parties participated in a mediation, which did not result in a settlement. On December 22, 2019, the Company’s Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee (the “SLC”) to conduct an investigation of the claims asserted in the Supplemental Derivative Complaint. On February 18, 2020, the SLC moved to stay all proceedings in the Consolidated Derivative Action pending completion of its investigation. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to stay on March 3, 2020 and the SLC filed its reply on March 13, 2020. On May 12, 2020, after hearing oral argument, Vice Chancellor Slights granted the SLC’s motion to stay proceedings until September 18, 2020 so that the SLC may complete its investigation. On September 11, 2020, Vice Chancellor Slights granted the parties’ request to extend the stay until October 31, 2020, to allow the SLC further time to complete its investigation. On October 26, 2020, Vice Chancellor Slights granted the parties’ request to further extend the stay until November 15, 2020. On November 13, 2020, Vice Chancellor Slights granted the parties’ request to further extend the stay until December 15, 2020.
On December 16, 2020, the SLC filed a report (the “SLC Report”) containing the findings of its investigation. The SLC Report concludes that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action lack merit. Specifically, the SLC Report finds that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company’s TIGER-X clinical trial. Accordingly, on the same date that the SLC Report was filed, the SLC filed a motion to terminate the Consolidated Derivative Action in Delaware Chancery Court. A briefing schedule on the motion to terminate has not yet been set.
On March 26, 2021, in response to discovery requests from Plaintiffs, the SLC filed a motion for a protective order seeking to preclude discovery into the merits of the claims investigated by the SLC. On March 29, 2021, the Company joined the SLC’s motion for a protective order. Pursuant to a scheduling stipulation entered by the Court on April 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion for a protective order on April 16, 2021, and the SLC filed its reply on April 30, 2021. Oral argument on the SLC’s motion for a protective order, originally scheduled for May 24, 2021, will occur on August 23, 2021.
While the motion to terminate the action remains pending before Vice Chancellor Slights, the Company does not believe this litigation will have a material impact on its financial position or results of operations.
European Patent Opposition
NaN European patents in the rucaparib camsylate salt/polymorph patent family (European Patent 2534153 and its divisional European Patent 3150610) were opposed. In particular, opposition notices against European Patent 2534153 were filed by two parties on June 20, 2017. During an oral hearing that took place on December 4, 2018, the European Patent Office’s Opposition Division maintained European Patent 2534153 in amended and narrowed form with claims to certain crystalline forms of rucaparib camsylate, including, but not limited to, rucaparib S-camsylate Form A, the crystalline form in Rubraca. Clovis and 1 opponent, Hexal AG, appealed the written decision of the European Opposition Division and filed reply appeal briefs in early November 2019. An opposition against European Patent 3150610 was filed by Generics (UK) Limited on April 30, 2020 on grounds similar to those raised in the opposition notices against European Patent 2534153, which grounds are common in such proceedings. Moreover, these grounds of opposition, as well as documents based on which lack of patentability has been alleged, were considered by the European Patent Office during the examination stage, and the claims were deemed to comply with the applicable law when granting the patent. Clovis responded to the opposition notice in European Patent 3150610 on January 8, 2021,