Commitments and Contingencies | 7. Commitments and Contingencies Lease Commitments We lease facilities under non-cancelable operating lease agreements. Future minimum commitments for these operating leases in place as of December 31, 2016, with a remaining non-cancelable lease term in excess of one year, are as follows (in thousands): Years ending December 31, 2017 $ 3,113 2018 3,310 2019 3,405 2020 3,495 2021 2,526 Thereafter 14,429 Total $ 30,278 The terms of certain lease agreements provide for rental payments on a graduated basis. We recognize rent expense on the straight-line basis over the lease period and have accrued for rent expense incurred but not paid. Landlord incentives are recorded as deferred rent and amortized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Deferred rent was approximately $3,003,000 as of December 31, 2016 and $3,160,000 as of December 31, 2015. Rent expense under operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was approximately $2,757,000, $2,445,000, and $1,698,000, respectively. Letters of Credit As of December 31, 2016, we had a $400,000 unused letter of credit related to the requirements of our facility lease agreement. 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. In October 2015, we entered into an amended and restated supply, development & exclusive licensing agreement with Aptargroup, Inc. (“Aptar”) which, among other things, extended our exclusive supply rights to the current sublingual device, currently utilized by SUBSYS®, as well any new device(s) jointly developed by the two companies for a period of seven years. In addition to extending the term, this amendment added certain minimum purchase commitments and requires certain tiered royalties as a percentage of net revenue to be paid by us ranging from less than one percent to the low single digits, commencing in March 2016 through the term of this agreement, from our sales of SUBSYS® and future products that use the Aptar spray device technology. As of December 31, 2016, our remaining estimated annual contractual obligation under our agreement with Aptar was $20,290,000. In January 2016, we assigned our rights, title, duties and obligations of our manufacturing and supply agreement with DPT and our supply, development & exclusive licensing agreement with Aptar from our parent to our manufacturing subsidiary as part of a corporate restructuring. In July 2016, we, through our manufacturing subsidiary, entered into a further amendment to our DPT manufacturing and supply agreement dated May 24, 2011, as amended. This amendment effectively eliminates any prior minimum purchase (and batch) obligations that had been set forth in the amendment dated April 30, 2015 and replaces it with a new annual purchase commitment of $4,000,000 per calendar year commencing January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. As a result, the cumulative effect related to this amendment reduces our aggregated minimum purchase commitments with DPT from $49,740,000 to $16,000,000 through December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2016, our remaining estimated annual contractual obligation under our agreement with DPT was $16,000,000. All purchase commitments required under our agreements with DPT and Aptar were met during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. The following table sets forth our aggregate minimum purchase commitments with DPT and Aptar under these agreements (in thousands): Years ending December 31, 2017 $ 7,500 2018 7,500 2019 8,410 2020 8,550 2021 4,330 Thereafter — Total $ 36,290 Defined Contribution Retirement Plans (401(k) Plan) We sponsor a 401(k) plan covering all full-time employees. Participants may contribute up to the legal limit. The 401(k) plan provides for employee contributions, and beginning October 2014, our matching contribution is 50 percent of the first 6 percent of earnings contributed by each participant. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, matching contribution plan expenses totaled approximately $730,000 and $670,000, respectively. Matching contributions for the year ended December 31, 2014 were nominal 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 currently believe are either individually or collectively material. We record accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount in the range is accrued. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no liability is recorded. We have established reserves for certain of our legal matters. Our loss estimates are generally developed in consultation with outside counsel and are based on analyses of potential outcomes. As legal and governmental proceedings, disputes and investigations 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. While our liability in connection with certain claims cannot be currently estimated, the resolution in any reporting period of one or more of these matters could have a significant impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows for that future period and could ultimately have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and could cause the market value of our common shares to decline. While we believe we have valid defenses in these matters, litigation and governmental and regulatory investigations are inherently uncertain and we may in the future incur material judgments or enter into material settlements of claims. 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 or actually material at this time. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial payments, fines and/or civil penalties or damages or exclusion from federal health care programs or other administrative actions, as well as a corporate integrity agreement or similar government mandated compliance document that institutes significant restrictions or obligations, could result for us from any government investigation or proceeding. In addition, even certain investigations that are not discussed below and which we do not deem to be material at this time could be determined to be material and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Department of Health and Human Services Investigation . We received a subpoena, dated December 9, 2013, from the Office of Inspector General of the HHS in connection with an investigation of potential violations involving HHS programs. This subpoena was issued in connection with an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. This subpoena requests documents regarding our business, including the commercialization of SUBSYS®. We are cooperating with this investigation and have produced documents in response to the subpoena and have provided other requested information. We believe a loss is probable with respect to this investigation, but we are not in a position to estimate a range of such loss or other scope and outcome associated with this investigation. HIPAA Investigation . On September 8, 2014, we received a subpoena issued pursuant to HIPAA from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. The subpoena requests documents regarding SUBSYS®, including our sales and marketing practices related to this product. This investigation also relates to activities in our patient services hub. We are cooperating with this investigation and have produced documents in response to the subpoena and have provided other requested information. We believe a loss is probable with respect to this investigation, but we are not in a position to estimate a range of such loss or other scope and outcome associated with this 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 us. Several of our former employees have been charged in criminal proceedings. On or about February 18, 2016, one of our former sales employees located in Alabama pled guilty to a conspiracy to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in regards to two Alabama health care professionals who prescribed our product SUBSYS®. These two Alabama health care professionals, 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, were charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Alabama, and on or about February 23, 2017, were convicted on 19 of 20 counts brought against them which included charges related to distribution of a controlled substance, drug conspiracy, healthcare fraud conspiracy and money laundering. Moreover, on or about June 19, 2016, a former district sales manager in New York and a former sales representative in New Jersey were charged in a federal court in Manhattan, New York with violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with interacting with health care professionals who prescribed our product and served on our speaker bureau. Both of these employees have pled not guilty. On or about October 13, 2016, a former prior authorization specialist and manager of our patient services hub was charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with the Company’s provision of prior authorization support related to our patient services hub. On or about December 8, 2016, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts issued an indictment against six former employees, including Michael L. Babich, our former President, CEO and director, on charges including racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and forfeiture. Other than the former Alabama sales employee, each of these indicted individuals have entered pleas of not guilty to the charges against them. It is possible that additional individual criminal charges and convictions and pleas could result from our ongoing federal and state government investigations and related proceedings. We continue to assess these matters to ensure we have an effective compliance program. State Related Investigations . We have received Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) or subpoenas, as the case may be, from each of the Office of the Attorney General (or similarly named and authorized office) of the State of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. Moreover, we have received an administrative subpoena from the California Insurance Commissioner. In addition, we understand that numerous physicians practicing within several of the aforementioned states have received subpoenas from each applicable state Attorney General or Department of Justice office in connection with interactions with us. Generally, these CIDs and subpoenas request documents regarding SUBSYS®, including our sales and marketing practices related to SUBSYS® in the applicable state, as well as our patient services hub. We are cooperating with each of these investigations and have produced documents in response to these CIDs, subpoenas and related requests for information from each office. In connection with the investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice (“ODOJ”) we entered into a settlement agreement with the ODOJ referred to as an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”), and made 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. All monetary payments in connection with this settlement were made prior to December 31, 2015. In connection with the investigation by the State of Illinois, on August 25, 2016, the Illinois Office of the Attorney General filed a complaint on behalf of the State of Illinois against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint asserts a claim for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in connection with the sales and marketing of SUBSYS® in Illinois. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including a permanent injunction preventing us from engaging in commerce in the State of Illinois and civil penalties. The Circuit Court of Cook County extended the time for us to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint and the next status hearing is April 7, 2017. We continue to cooperate with this investigation and to engage in discussion with the Illinois Office of the Attorney General. In connection with the investigation by the State of New Hampshire, we entered into a settlement agreement with the State of New Hampshire referred to as an assurance of discontinuance, and made monetary payments totaling approximately $2,900,000 to the State of New Hampshire and a charitable contribution of $500,000 to be used by a New Hampshire charitable foundation in preventing or remediating problems related to abuse, misuse or misprescribing of opioid drugs. The assurance of discontinuance expressly provides that we do not admit any violation of law or regulation and requires us to maintain certain controls and processes around our promotional and sales activity related to SUBSYS® in New Hampshire. This settlement was reached as result of our cooperation with the State of New Hampshire investigation and after producing documents in response to certain requests for information by the State of New Hampshire. These amounts have been accrued in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016 and the payments in connection with this settlement were made after December 31, 2016. In connection with the investigation by the State of Massachusetts, we have made a reasonable estimate of a probable loss of approximately $500,000. We continue to cooperate with the State of Massachusetts investigation, including producing documents in response to certain requests for information. This estimated amount has been accrued in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. Investigations of Physicians . In addition to the above investigations that are specifically directed at our company, we have received governmental agency requests for information, including subpoenas, from the USAO of Connecticut, Eastern District of Michigan, Florida (Jacksonville), Kansas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Southern District of New York, Southern District of Alabama and Western District of New York regarding specific physicians that we have interacted with in those states. Opioid Litigation . Many federal and governmental agencies are focused on the abuse of opioids in the United States and agencies such as the HHS have expressed their belief that the United States is in the midst of a prescription opioid abuse epidemic. Common prescription drugs that contain opioids are drugs such as oxycodone, hydrocodone and fentanyl. Our product, SUBSYS®, is a fentanyl-based product in the TIRF class. Certain stakeholders in the healthcare community, regulatory bodies and governmental agencies may associate us with, or determine that we are a part of, this perceived opioid abuse epidemic. Like all TIRF products, our product is part of the mandatory TIRF REMS program which is designed “to ensure informed risk-benefit decisions before initiating treatment, and while patients are treated to ensure appropriate use of TIRF medicines” and “to mitigate the risk of misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose and serious complications due to medication errors with the use of TIRF medicines.” Nevertheless, from time to time, we may be included in litigation or investigations that are directed at the abuse of opioids in the United States. For example, in May 2014, Santa Clara and Orange Counties in California filed a complaint in state court in Orange County, California against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging claims related to opioid marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, and public nuisance. Despite the fact that we are not named specifically in the complaint and this lawsuit was recently stayed, we have received a preservation notice letter from the Office of the County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara. From time to time, we may be included in these types of litigations as a result of the fact that we market an opioid product. In addition, on March 28, 2017, the Ranking Member of the With the exception of the investigations by the ODOJ, the State of New Hampshire and the State of Massachusetts which we have quantified above, and the investigations by the Department of Health and Human Services and HIPAA for which we have responded to subpoenas as requested, we believe a loss from an unfavorable outcome of these governmental proceedings is reasonably possible and an estimate of the amount or range of loss from an unfavorable outcome is not determinable at these stages. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in these matters. However, responding to government investigations has and could continue to burden us with substantial legal costs in connection with defending any claims raised. Any potential resulting fines, restitution, damages and penalties, settlement payments, pleas or exclusion from federal health care programs or other administrative actions, as well as any related actions brought by shareholders or other third parties, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, these matters could also have a negative impact on our reputation and divert the attention of our management from operating our business. Federal Securities Litigation and Derivative Complaints Federal Securities Litigation. On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint (captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, against us and certain of our current and former officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations and compliance with law during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. On June 3, 2016, the court appointed Clark Miller to serve as lead plaintiff. On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. as an additional defendant and extending the class period. On December 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, primarily to add allegations relating to an indictment of Michael L. Babich and certain of our former employees announced on December 8, 2016 and to extend the class period from August 12, 2014 through December 8, 2016. On January 12, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend against this claim. On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint (captioned Kayd Currier v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against us and certain of our officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of our securities between February 23, 2016 and March 15, 2017. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and financial results during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of our securities. On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same Court. The plaintiffs in both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Derivative Litigation. On or about August 26, 2016, Gary Hirt and Precieux Art Jewelers Inc. filed a derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of Delaware against members of our Board of Directors and Michael L. Babich. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (a) knowingly overseeing the implementation of an illegal sales and marketing program, (b) consciously disregarding their duty of oversight of our compliance with law and (c) trading on the basis of material non-public information. On November 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint, and on January 26, 2017 the plaintiffs supplemented the amended derivative complaint, primarily to add allegations relating to the indictment of Michael L. Babich and certain of our former employees announced on December 8, 2016. On November 22, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. On or about February 2, 2017, Michael Bourque filed a derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery against members of our Board of Directors; Michael L. Babich; Franc Del Fosse, our General Counsel; and Sanga Emmanuel, our Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer. The Bourque derivative complaint contains similar claims as the other derivative complaint. All parties stipulated to consolidate the two actions, and the consolidated action is captioned In re Insys Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 12696-VCMR. Following the submission of motions for appointment as lead counsel, the Court held a hearing on March 23, 2017, and appointed counsel for Gary Hirt and Precieux Art Jewelers Inc. as lead counsel. Lead counsel is required to designate an operative complaint or file a consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief derivatively on behalf of the company. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. General Litigation and Disputes Kottayil vs. Insys Pharma, Inc . On September 29, 2009, Insys Pharma, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of our officers and the five directors who comprised the Insys Pharma board of directors as of June 2009, as well as their spouses, were named as defendants in a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, or the Arizona Superior Court, brought by Santosh Kottayil, Ph.D., certain of his family members and a trust of which Dr. Kottayil is the trustee. Dr. Kottayil formerly served as President, Chief Scientific Officer and a director of Insys Pharma, among other positions. The complaint brought a cause of action for statutory and common law appraisal of Dr. Kottayil’s Insys Pharma common stock. The cause of action for appraisal relates to a reverse stock split that Insys Pharma effected in June 2009, which resulted in Dr. Kottayil’s ownership position becoming a fractional share of Insys Pharma common stock. Following the reverse stock split, Insys Pharma cancelled all resulting fractional shares, including the fractional share held by Dr. Kottayil, and offered a cash payment in lieu of the fractional shares. The complaint also brought causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in the defendants’ dealings with Dr. Kottayil on the subject of his compensation and stock ownership in Insys Pharma. In January 2010, the plaintiffs added claims seeking to rescind Dr. Kottayil’s assignment to Insys Pharma of his interest in all of the fentanyl and dronabinol patent applications previously assigned to Insys Pharma and to recover the benefits of those interests. Dr. Kottayil was seeking, among other relief, the fair value of his Insys Pharma common stock as of June 2, 2009, compensatory and punitive damages, and rescission of all assignments to Insys Pharma of his interest in the patent applications, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. 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, sought compensatory and punitive damages. 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-alleged substantially the same claims set forth in the prior complaint, except that plaintiffs also alleged that they were entitled to rescissory damages, added our majority stockholder, a private trust, as a defendant to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and revised their fraud claim against the Insys Pharma director defendants. 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 Insys Therapeutics, Inc. 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. On October 2, 2015, the court entered a final judgment, awarding plaintiffs the amount of $7,317,450, along with pre-judgment interest from June 2, 2009, and post-judgment interest, from October 2, 2015, at the rate of 4.25% per annum, compounded quarterly and taxable costs in the amount of $93,163. On the same date, the court denied Kottayil’s request to submit an application for attorneys’ fees for his defense of the Insys Pharma counterclaims, finding that the request was premature. As a result of the final ruling, we have accrued $9,567,000 at December 31, 2016, including $2,249,000 of estimated pre-judgement interest, which represents our current best estimate of this contingent liability. The final outcome of the appeal could cause this estimate to vary materially from the final award. On October 20, 2015, plaintiffs appealed the foregoing judgment and on November 4, 2015, Insys Pharma and the other defendants against whom judgment was entered filed a notice of cross-appeal. The appeal and cross-appeal remain pending before the Court of Appeals for the State of Arizona. On or around November 1, 2015, we received a notice from the Plaintiff’s attorneys demanding indemnification for legal and other defense costs alleged to have been incurred in connection with Dr. Kottayil’s defense of the Insys Pharma counterclaims in the amount of $3,630,000. We responded to these demands by, among other things, requesting for supporting documents and information from the Plaintiffs’ counsel which we have not received yet. Accordingly, we are still in the process of assessing the merit of such claims as well as evaluating the basis for the costs claimed. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome we have not accrued for this claim at this time; however, we believe that that it is reasonably possible that there may be a material loss associated with this claim and we currently estimate the range of the reasonably possible loss to be between $0 and the $3,630,000 claimed. As of August 1, 2016, Plaintiffs have filed opening and reply and cross response briefs and we have filed our answering and cross-appeal brief and our reply in support of our cross-appeal. The court has granted but not yet scheduled oral argument. Markland . On July 1, 2016, Robert N. Markland, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Carolyn S. Markland filed a complaint in the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County Florida against our parent, Insys Therapeutics, Inc. The complaint states it is a wrongful death products liability action brought pursuant to Section 768.16, et seq. under Florida law in connection with a death occurring in July 2014 and includes a claim of negligent marketing. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for past expenses and costs, pain and suffering and loss of consortium and earnings. On August 4, 2016, we removed this case to federal district court in the Middle District of Florida. On September 2, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss and are awaiting the court’s ruling. We intend to vigorously defend this matter and based on currently available information, we do not believe any resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations. Buchalter . On September 9, 2016, Jeffrey Buchalter filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland against Dr. William Tham, Physical Medicine & Pain Management Associates, Maryland Neurological Institute, various physician assistants, and Insys Therapeutics, Inc. Plaintiff’s complaint states it is a personal injury action against Insys related to negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn and fraud under state laws. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. We have filed a motion to sismiss and are awaiting the court’s ruling We intend to vigorously defend this matter and based on currently available information, we do not believe any resolution of this matter will have a m |