Commitments and Contingencies | 14. Commitments and Contingencies Royalty and License Fee Commitments We have entered into certain license agreements, as identified in Note 12, License Agreements 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 a forecast. In addition, the third-party supplier has constructed, in its existing facility, a production train that will be exclusively dedicated to the manufacture of the Rubraca active ingredient. We made scheduled capital program fee payments toward capital equipment and other costs associated with the construction of the dedicated production train. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2018, once the facility was operational, we were 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 June 30, 2021, $49.4 million of purchase commitments remain 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, financial lease of equipment, purchase of leasehold improvements and prepaid 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. On June 16, 2021, we entered into amendment no. 2 of the Agreement with Lonza (“Amendment 2”). Pursuant to the terms of Amendment 2, we are paying Lonza $1.1 million to repurpose the production train so that Lonza will be able to use the facility to manufacture other products for third parties in addition to API for Clovis. Lonza is guaranteeing a minimum percentage usage of this production train for third parties and Lonza would reduce our fixed facility fee starting in 2023 based on this minimum percentage usage. If Lonza is able to utilize greater than the minimum guaranteed percentage, it will increase the reduction to our fixed facility fee. We evaluated Amendment 2 and determined that we no longer have a lease with Lonza at June 30, 2021 because Amendment 2 modified the terms of the Agreement in that Lonza will use a portion of the production train for third parties. The Agreement no longer conveys the right to direct the use of the identified asset and Clovis no longer has the right to obtain substantially all the economic benefit from the asset. As a result, the arrangement is no longer in scope of 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 In March 2017, two putative shareholders of the Company, Macalinao and McKenry (“ 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, 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 for rociletinib was being conducted in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and protocols, and engaging in insider trading. 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. 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 Two 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 one 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, amending the claims to be directed to the use of rucaparib maleate in a method of inhibiting PARP activity or treating cancer. A preliminary opinion and summons to oral proceedings were issued on January 26, 2021. The oral hearing is scheduled for November 18, 2021. The preliminary opinion provides a non-binding indication of the Opposition Division’s initial view based on the documents that have thus far been submitted, which agrees with our positions on a number of grounds of opposition and agrees with an objection made by the opponent, but only with respect to some of the claims. As part of the opposition proceedings, we have the opportunity to submit further arguments and pursue alternative claims in the form of auxiliary requests. While the ultimate results of patent challenges can be difficult to predict, it is our view that a number of factors support patentability, and we believe a successful challenge of all claims would be difficult. |