Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | 6. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters Other than the matters that we have disclosed below, we from time to time become involved in various ordinary course legal and administrative proceedings, which include intellectual property, commercial, governmental and regulatory investigations, employee related issues and private litigation, which we do not believe are either individually or collectively material. As legal and governmental proceedings are inherently unpredictable and, in part, beyond our control, unless otherwise indicated, 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 from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in any of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, and could cause the market value of our common shares to decline. Government Proceedings Like other companies in the pharmaceutical industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States. As a result, interaction with government agencies occurs in the normal course of our operations. The following is a brief description of pending governmental investigations which we believe are potentially material at this time. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial payments, fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from any government investigation or proceeding, as well as a corporate integrity agreement or similar government mandated compliance document, whether we deem an investigation to be material or not at this time. Department of Health and Human Services Investigation. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Investigation. On or about June 23, 2015, a nurse practitioner located in Connecticut, who served on our speaker bureau in connection with our speaker programs designed to educate and promote product awareness and safety for external health care providers, pled guilty to violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with payments of approximately $83,000 from the Company. We are currently looking into these issues. State Related Investigations. In connection with the investigation by the ODOJ we have entered into a settlement agreement with the ODOJ referred to as an AVC, and agreed to make monetary payments totaling approximately $1,100,000. The AVC requires us to maintain certain controls and processes around our promotional and sales activity related to Subsys in Oregon. This AVC expressly provides that we do not admit any violation of law or regulation. This settlement was reached as result of our cooperation with the ODOJ's investigation and after producing documents in response to certain CIDs and related requests for information from the ODOJ. We believe that the probability of unfavorable outcome or loss related to these governmental proceedings, with the exception of the ODOJ investigation, and an estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, from an unfavorable outcome are not determinable at this time. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in these matters. However, responding to government investigations, defending any claims raised, and any resulting fines, restitution, damages and penalties, settlement payments or administrative actions, as well as any related actions brought by shareholders or other third parties, could have a material impact on our reputation, business and financial condition and divert the attention of our management from operating our business. Federal Securities Litigation Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints (captioned Larson v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01043-GMS) and (Li vs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv-01077-DGC) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, or Arizona District Court, against us and certain of our current officers. The complaints were brought as purported class actions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making intentionally false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations, therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs complaint was filed on October 27, 2014. On December 11, 2014, we moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On March 19, 2015, the parties participated in a mediation and the parties subsequently agreed in principle, on April 14, 2015, to settle the action. On April 20, 2015, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court. On April 29, 2015, the Court ordered that the lawsuit be dismissed within 60 days, vacated all pending hearings, and denied all pending motions as moot. On May 28, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement, which provided the terms of a settlement agreement. On June 2, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and the potential class members have been (or will be) notified of the proposed settlement and the procedure by which they can object to the settlement or request to be excluded from the class. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court and the Court has scheduled a settlement hearing for December 5, 2015. Because we have met our retainage amount under the applicable policy, we believe that any potential obligations that may arise as result of the proposed settlement in this matter will be fully covered under our Directors and Officers insurance policy. Accordingly, we have not accrued for any contingencies in this matter into our operating results. General Litigation and Disputes Kottayil vs. Insys Pharma, Inc. In February 2010, Insys Pharma and the other defendants answered and filed counter-claims to Dr. Kottayil’s amended complaint. The counter-claims include actions for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentations and omissions with respect to the time during which Dr. Kottayil was employed at Insys Pharma. The counter-claims, among other relief, seek compensatory and punitive damages. Discovery on all of the foregoing claims was completed and a trial was scheduled to commence on January 27, 2014; however, on January 22, 2014, the court vacated the trial and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to add Insys Therapeutics, Inc. as a defendant. On January 29, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the Arizona Superior Court in which Insys Therapeutics, Inc. was also named as defendant in this lawsuit. This amended complaint filed by plaintiffs re-alleges substantially the same claims set forth in the prior complaint, except that plaintiffs now allege that they are entitled to rescissory damages, plaintiffs have also added our majority stockholder, a private trust, as a defendant to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and plaintiffs have revised their fraud claim against the Insys Pharma director defendants. On February 25, 2014, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the Kottayil Plantiffs’ claims for a statutory and common law appraisal. The motion was denied on May 2, 2014. The trial commenced on December 1, 2014 with the evidence phase of the trial completed on January 29, 2015. On June 8, 2015, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in its final trial ruling. Specifically, the court found (i) in favor of Insys Pharma, our majority stockholder, a private trust and four of the Insys Pharma directors who were on the board in July 2008 on plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of transactions the board approved in July 2008, (ii) found in favor of plaintiffs and against Insys Pharma, Inc., our majority stockholder, a private trust and three of the Insys Pharma directors who were on the board in June 2009 on plaintiffs’ claims under Delaware law and for breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the reverse stock split the board approved in June 2009 in the amount of $7,317,450, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and court costs, (iii) found in favor of two of the Insys Pharma directors who were on the Insys Pharma board as of June 2009 and against plaintiffs on plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims, (iv) found in favor of Insys Pharma and against plaintiff (Kottayil) on his claim for rescission of the patent application assignments that he entered in favor of Insys Pharma before and after his employment terminated, (v) found in favor of us and against plaintiff on plaintiffs' claims of successor liability and fraudulent transfer, and (vi) found in favor of Kottayil and against Insys Pharma on Insys Pharma's counterclaims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The court still has to resolve certain post-trial issues, which are currently being briefed by the parties, before a final judgment is entered. As a result of the final ruling, we have accrued $10,304,000 at June 30, 2015 including $3,014,000 of estimated pre-and post-judgement interest. Any final judgement entered by the court is subject to a potential appeal which could cause the estimates to vary materially from the final award. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. vs. Mylan Pharmaceuticals . On May 31, 2013, Mylan filed a demand with the American Arbitration Association, Case No. 55 122 00119 13. Mylan’s demand alleged that we were in breach of the Distribution Agreement. On July 10, 2013, we filed a response to Mylan’s demand, denying we were in breach of the Distribution Agreement, and asserting counterclaims based on Mylan’s material breach of the Distribution Agreement and the duty of good faith and fair dealing. On January 21, 2014, Mylan filed a second new lawsuit against us with the District Court, as Case No. 2:14-cv-00119-GMS, asserting a claim for declaratory judgment and seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction relating to our notice of termination of the Distribution Agreement with respect to the parties’ failure to agree on floor pricing. On January 24, 2014, we responded in opposition to the application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, or Application. A hearing was initially set for April 3, 2014. After stipulation of the parties to postpone the hearing, the Court denied all pending motions as moot on April 2, 2014. The Application was dismissed by the Court with prejudice on June 2, 2014. After the Application was dismissed, Mylan filed a Motion to Enforce a draft settlement agreement between the parties. We responded in opposition and the District Court denied Mylan’s motion on September 12, 2014. We have moved for sanctions against Mylan for filing the motion to enforce and we intend to seek damages and attorneys’ fees as part of this arbitration. On September 23, 2014, the three member arbitration panel held a preliminary hearing wherein it decided that the arbitration proceeding would be bifurcated. The first phase of the proceeding will determine whether there has been a material breach of the Agreement. If either party is successful in establishing its claims during this first phase then there will be a second phase of the arbitration to determine damages. In November 2014, the arbitration panel held Phase I of the arbitration proceeding which we anticipate will resolve (1) whether Mylan materially breached the Agreement by failing to accept the delivery of conforming shipments of product in October 2012, January 2014 and March 2014; (2) whether Mylan has materially breached the parties’ Supply and Distribution Agreement by failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to market and sell the product; and (3) whether we are in breach of the Agreement by delivering non-conforming product. On June 23, 2015, the Panel issued an interim order in connection with Phase I. The Panel’s order found that (1) Mylan did not breach the Agreement with respect to the October 2012 shipment of the product, and (2) our termination of the Agreement because of the parties’ dispute over floor pricing was effective as of March 22, 2014. The Panel determined that there was no need to address the issue of whether we properly terminated the Agreement because of the January 2014 or March 2014 shipments of the products. The Panel also determined that it is necessary to hold proceedings for Phase II of the arbitration to determine the amount, if any, of damages suffered by either party or whether Mylan used commercially reasonable efforts to sell the product. The parties have submitted preliminary briefing on their positions related to damages and the Panel has scheduled a hearing for August 12, 2015. Except as it pertains to the $10,304,000 accrued for the dispute with Dr. Kottayil, the $1,100,000 accrued in connection with the ODOJ settlement payment and the potential for damages in the Federal Securities litigation that should be sufficiently covered by our Director and Officers insurance policies as noted above, we believe that the probability of unfavorable outcome or loss related to all of the above litigation matters and an estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, from an unfavorable outcome are not determinable at this time. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in these matters but the range possible outcomes on these matters is very broad and we are not able to provide a reasonable estimate of our potential liability, if any, nor are we able to predict the outcome of each litigation matter. Responding to each of these litigation matters, defending any claims raised, and any resulting fines, restitution, damages and penalties, or settlement payments as well as any related actions brought by shareholders or other third parties, could have a material impact on our reputation, business and financial condition and divert the attention of our management from operating our business. Material Agreements In April 2015, we entered into an amendment to our manufacturing and supply agreement with DPT, which extends our existing manufacturing and supply agreement to produce Subsys until the end of 2020. In addition to extending the term, this amendment added certain minimum purchase commitments. The following table sets forth minimum purchase commitments with DPT under this agreement (in thousands): Years ending December 31, 2015 - 2016 - 2017 8,450 2018 11,150 2019 13,850 Thereafter 16,290 Total $ 49,740 |