| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies The Company has entered into strategic business agreements for the development and marketing of pharmaceutical products with companies. Each strategic business agreement generally includes a future payment schedule for contingent milestone payments and in certain agreements, minimum royalty payments. The Company will be responsible for contingent milestone payments and minimum royalty payments to these strategic business partners based upon the occurrence of future events. Each strategic business agreement defines the triggering event of its future payment schedule, such as meeting product development progress timeline, successful product testing and validation, successful clinical studies, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or other regulatory approvals and other factors as negotiated in each agreement. None of the contingent milestone payments or minimum royalty payments is individually material to the Company. The Company is engaged in various supply agreements with third parties that obligate the Company to purchase various active pharmaceutical ingredients or finished products at contractual minimum levels. None of these agreements is individually or in aggregate material to the Company. Further, the Company does not believe at this time that any of the purchase obligations represent levels above that of normal business demands. The table below summarizes contingent, potential milestone payments that would become due to strategic partners in the years 2020 and beyond, assuming all such contingencies occur (in thousands): Year ending December 31, Milestone Payments 2020 $ 2,907 2021 1,105 2022 250 2023 250 Total $ 4,512 Legal Proceedings Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG On April 22, 2018, Fresenius Kabi AG delivered to Akorn a letter purporting to terminate the Merger Agreement. On April 23, 2018, Akorn filed a complaint entitled Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, Quercus Acquisition, Inc. and Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, alleging among other things, that the defendants anticipatorily breached their obligations under the Merger Agreement and knowingly and intentionally engaged in a series of actions designed to hamper and ultimately block the Merger. The complaint sought, among other things, a declaration that Fresenius Kabi AG’s termination was invalid, an order enjoining the defendants from terminating the Merger Agreement, and an order compelling the defendants to use reasonable best efforts to consummate and make effective the Merger. On April 30, 2018, the defendants filed a verified counterclaim alleging that, due primarily to purported data integrity deficiencies, the Company had breached representations, warranties and covenants in the Merger Agreement, and that it had experienced a material adverse effect. The verified counterclaim sought, among other things, a declaration that defendants’ purported termination of the Merger Agreement was valid and that defendants were not obligated to consummate the transaction, and damages. Following expedited discovery, the Court of Chancery held a trial on the parties’ claims (the “Delaware Action”). On October 1, 2018, following the conclusion of post-trial briefing, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) denying Akorn’s claims for relief and concluding, among other things, that Fresenius Kabi AG had validly terminated the Merger Agreement. The Court of Chancery concluded that Akorn had experienced a material adverse effect due to its financial performance following the signing of the Merger Agreement; that Akorn had breached representations and warranties in the Merger Agreement and that those breaches would reasonably be expected to give rise to a material adverse effect; that Akorn had materially breached covenants in the Merger Agreement; and that Fresenius was materially in compliance with its own contractual obligations. On October 17, 2018, the Court of Chancery entered partial final judgment against Akorn on its claims and in favor of the Fresenius parties on their claims for declaratory judgment, but held proceedings on the Fresenius parties’ damages claims in abeyance pending the resolution of any appeal from the partial final judgment. On December 7, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s opinion denying Akorn’s claims and granting the defendants’ counterclaim for a declaration that the termination was valid. On December 27, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a mandate returning the case to the Court of Chancery for consideration of all remaining issues. On August 16, 2019, the Fresenius parties filed a motion for summary judgment seeking damages of approximately $123 million. On September 30, 2019, Akorn filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the Fresenius parties’ motion. On November 14, 2019, Fresenius filed a combined opposition to Akorn’s cross-motion for summary judgment and reply in further support of its own motion for summary judgment. Fresenius’s combined opposition and reply brief adjusted its claim to seek damages of approximately $117 million. Briefing on the motions was completed on December 9, 2019. On April 22, 2020, the Court of Chancery heard oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court of Chancery denied Fresenius’s request for approximately $43 million in alleged damages attributable to Fresenius’s litigation fees and expenses, and reserved judgment on the remaining components of Fresenius’s damages claim. In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief Accounting Officer Randall Pollard. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data integrity at the Company. The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company disputes these claims. On May 31, 2018, the Court appointed Gabelli & Co. Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), approved their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel and amended the case caption to In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation (the “Securities Class Action Litigation”). On September 5, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting (i) claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Fraud Claims”) against Defendants Akorn, Rajat Rai, Duane Portwood, Mark Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Ronald Johnson and Brian Tambi; and (ii) claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Proxy Claims”) against defendants Akorn, Rajat Rai, John Kapoor, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth Abramowitz, Adrienne Graves, Ronald Johnson, Steven Meyer, Terry Rappuhn and Brian Tambi. The amended complaint alleged that, from November 3, 2016, to April 20, 2018, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at Akorn’s manufacturing and research and development facilities, while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading statements and omissions of material fact concerning the Company’s data integrity at its facilities. The amended complaint alleged that corrective information was provided to the market on two separate dates, causing non-insider shareholders to lose over $1.07 billion and $613 million in value respectively. The amended complaint sought an award of equitable relief and damages. On October 29, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and joint motion providing for the dismissal of certain claims and defendants. On October 30, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion, dismissing the Proxy Claims without prejudice; dismissing defendants Kapoor, Abramowitz, Graves, Meyer and Rappuhn without prejudice; and dismissing Defendant Silverberg with prejudice. On February 21, 2019, plaintiff Johnny Wickstrom, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Wickstrom Action”). The complaint named as defendants the Company, Rai and Portwood. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning its compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the Company’s facility in Decatur, IL. The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. On April 22, 2019, plaintiff Vicente Juan, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Juan Action”). The complaint named as defendants the Company, Rai and Portwood. The complaint alleged that defendants made or caused the Company to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the Company’s facility in Decatur, IL. The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Also on April 22, 2019, lead plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, filed a second amended complaint against the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The second amended complaint alleges that, during a class period from November 3, 2016, to January 8, 2019, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at Akorn’s manufacturing and research and development facilities, while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading statements and/or omissions of material fact concerning the Company’s data integrity at its facilities. The second amended complaint alleges that corrective information was provided to the market on three separate dates. The second amended complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages. On May 3, 2019, the Company and lead plaintiffs commenced mediation. On May 9, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating both the Wickstrom Action and the Juan Action with and into the Securities Class Action Litigation. At a July 30, 2019 conference, the parties to the Securities Class Action Litigation disclosed to the Court that they had reached a non-binding agreement in principle, to settle the action that, if consummated, would provide for, among other things, the dismissal of that action and the release of all claims asserted by or on behalf of the putative class in that action. Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, the putative class would release its claims in exchange for a combination of (i) up to $30 million in insurance proceeds from the Company's D&O insurance policies, (ii) the issuance by the Company of approximately 6.5 million shares of the Company's common stock and any additional shares of Company common stock that are released as a result of the expiration of out of the money options through December 31, 2024, (collectively, the “Settlement Shares”) and (iii) the issuance by the Company of contingent value rights (“CVR”) with a five year term, subject to an extension of up to two years under certain circumstances. Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, holders of the CVR would be entitled to receive an annual cash payment from the Company of 33.3% of “Excess EBITDA” (i.e., earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) above the amount of EBITDA required to meet a 3.0x net leverage ratio, assuming a $100 million minimum cash cushion, before any such CVR payment is triggered). To the extent any such annual payments are triggered under the CVR, they are capped at an aggregate of $12 million per year and $60 million in the aggregate during the term of the CVR. Upon certain change of control transactions during the term of the CVR, if the Company’s first lien term loan lenders and holders of the Company’s other debt are repaid in full, CVR would entitle the holders to a cash payment in the aggregate amount of $30 million (the “Change of Control Payment”). If the Company is the subject of a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy filing during the term of the CVR, the CVR agreement would provide that holders of the CVR would receive in the aggregate a $30 million unsecured claim (which unsecured claim will be subordinated to any deficiency claim of the Company's first lien term loan lenders and holders of the Company's other secured debt in any such bankruptcy case) (the “Bankruptcy Claim”). The $60 million cap on annual payments would not apply to the Change of Control Payment or the Bankruptcy Claim, if any. No further amounts would be payable under the CVR following such a change of control transaction or bankruptcy event. The Company and the other defendants in the Securities Class Action Litigation have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the action, and the entry into the non-binding agreement in principle is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the other defendants. On August 9, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, approval of the form of class notice and a hearing date for final settlement approval (the “Final Approval Hearing”), with supporting papers, including the executed Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Securities Class Action Settlement Agreement”) setting forth the agreed terms and conditions of the settlement. On August 26, 2019, the Court formally entered an order (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, approving the form of class notice, and setting a hearing on final approval of the settlement for December 3, 2019. Between October 21, 2019, and November 11, 2019, entities affiliated with institutional investors Twin Master Fund, Ltd., Manikay Master Fund, LP, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P., Magnetar Constellation Fund II-PRA LP, AQR Funds and OxAM Quant Fund Limited delivered requests for exclusion from the Securities Class Action Litigation settlement. On November 22, 2019, the parties to the Securities Class Action Litigation filed a joint emergency motion requesting a sixty-day adjournment of the Final Approval Hearing, which had been set for December 3, 2019. The motion explained that the requests for exclusion from the settlement substantially exceeded the threshold necessary to give the Company and the other defendants the unilateral right to terminate the settlement. The motion further explained that an adjournment was necessary in order to afford the court time to rule on the motions to dismiss the Twin Master Fund and Manikay Master Fund complaints, which ruling was likely to provide important clarity to the Company and the other defendants in their assessment of whether to exercise their termination right. On November 26, 2019, the court in the Securities Class Action Litigation adjourned the Final Approval Hearing without date. On March 2, 2020, the parties to the Securities Class Action Litigation filed a joint motion to set the Final Approval Hearing for March 10 or 12, 2020, or at the Court’s earliest possible convenience thereafter, in light of the contemplation of commencement of a Chapter 11 filing on or about April 5, 2020, as described in the Company’s February 12, 2020 Form 8-K. On March 9, 2020, and March 12, 2020, respectively, the funds affiliated with OxAM Quant Fund Limited and Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P. withdrew their requests for exclusion from the Securities Class Action Litigation settlement. On March 13, 2020, with no objections having been filed that were not later withdrawn, the Court in the Securities Class Action Litigation entered a Final Order and Judgment granting final approval of the settlement and an order granting lead plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. In accordance with the terms of the Securities Class Action Settlement Agreement, between April 1, 2020 and April 7, 2020, a total of $27.5 million in insurance proceeds from the Company’s D&O insurance policies was deposited into a cash escrow account, and a total of 6.7 million Settlement Shares and a total of 6.7 million CVR were issued into separate securities escrow accounts. The Settlement Shares and the CVR were issued pursuant to the exemption from registration provided by Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Twin Master Fund, Ltd. et al. v. Akorn, Inc. et al.; Manikay Master Fund, LP et al. v. Akorn, Inc. et al.; Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P. et al. v. Akorn, Inc. et al.; Magentar Constellation Fund II-PRA LP et al. v. Akorn, Inc. et al.; AQR Funds – AQR Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund et al. v. Akorn, Inc. et al. On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs Twin Master Fund, Ltd., Twin Opportunities Fund, LP and Twin Securities, Inc., purported shareholders of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud (the “Twin Master Fund Action”). The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages and expenses. On July 10, 2019, plaintiffs Manikay Master Fund, LP and Manikay Merger Fund, LP, purported shareholders of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud (the “Manikay Master Fund Action”) against the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages and expenses. On September 13, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the complaints in the Twin Master Fund Action and Manikay Master Fund Action. Briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss was completed on November 5, 2019. On November 8, 2019, plaintiff Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P., a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud (the “Fir Tree Master Fund Action”). The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages and expenses. As discussed above, between November 9, 2020, and November 11, 2019, plaintiffs Twin Master Fund, Ltd., Manikay Master Fund, LP, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P., Magnetar Constellation Fund II-PRA LP and AQR Funds, and their respective affiliated entities, delivered requests for exclusion from the Securities Class Action Litigation settlement. On December 24, 2019, plaintiff Magnetar Constellation Fund II-PRA LP and affiliated entities, purported shareholders of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Magnetar Constellation Fund Action”). The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages and expenses. On January 10, 2020, defendants in the Fir Tree Master Fund Action moved to dismiss the complaint. On January 17, 2020, plaintiff Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P., filed oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. On January 20, 2020, plaintiff AQR Funds - AQR Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund and affiliated entities, purported shareholders of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud (the “AQR Funds Action” and, together with the Twin Master Fund, Manikay Master Fund, Fir Tree Master Fund and Magnetar Constellation Fund Actions, the “Opt-Out Actions”). The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages and expenses. Each of the Opt-Out Actions has been designated as related and assigned to the same judge. On February 5, 2020, the Court entered orders denying defendants’ motions to dismiss the Twin Master Fund and Manikay Master Fund Actions. At a status conference on February 13, 2020, the parties stipulated that the decision on defendants’ motions to dismiss the Twin Master Fund and Manikay Master Fund Actions applies equally to the Fir Tree Master Fund and Magnetar Constellation Fund Actions. The Court entered an order finding that the Fir Tree Master Fund and Magnetar Constellation Fund Actions state a claim. On February 26, 2020, the parties to the AQR Funds Action stipulated that the decision on defendants’ motions to dismiss the Twin Master Fund and Manikay Master Fund Actions applies equally to the AQR Funds Action. On February 27, 2020, the Court entered an order finding that the AQR Funds Action states a claim. On March 12, 2020, plaintiff Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P. withdrew its request for exclusion from the Securities Class Action Litigation settlement. On March 19, 2020, the parties in the Fir Tree Master Fund Action filed a stipulation and order of dismissal without prejudice. On March 20, 2020, the Court dismissed the Fir Tree Master Fund Action without prejudice. On March 6, 2020, plaintiffs in the Opt-Out Actions served their initial requests for production. On March 13, 2020, the parties to the Opt-Out actions exchanged initial disclosures and defendants served their initial requests for production. Fact discovery in the remaining Opt-Out Actions is presently ongoing. In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On November 6, 2018, Dale Trsar, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Trsar v. Kapoor, et al. against defendants John N. Kapoor, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M. Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Steven J. Meyer, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Adrienne L. Graves, Ronald M. Johnson and Brian Tambi in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Trsar Action”). The complaint purports to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to address the Company’s alleged non-compliance with FDA regulations; and the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements in proxy statements issued to Akorn shareholders on November 14, 2016 and March 20, 2017. The complaint sought an award of equitable relief and damages. On December 10, 2018, Felix Glaubach, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Glaubach v. Kapoor, et al. against John N. Kapoor, Rajat Rai, Mark M. Silverberg, Duane A. Portwood, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Steven J. Meyer, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Adrienne L. Graves, Ronald M. Johnson, and Brian Tambi in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Glaubach Action”). The complaint purported to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that (i) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to address the Company’s alleged non-compliance with FDA regulations; (ii) John N. Kapoor and Brian Tambi breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by misappropriating inside information in connection with sales of the Company’s stock; (iii) Rajat Rai and Duane A. Portwood were unjustly enriched; (iv) the Defendants wasted the Company’s assets; and (v) the Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements in proxy statements issued to the Company’s shareholders. The complaint sought an award of equitable relief and damages. On January 11, 2019, the Glaubach Action was consolidated with the Trsar Action, with the complaint filed in the Trsar Action designated as operative, and the case caption was amended to In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On January 14, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 14, 2019. Defendants filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of their motion to dismiss on February 28, 2019. As previously disclosed, on January 22, 2020, the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana entered a Final Order and Judgment finally approving a proposed settlement (the “Kogut Settlement”) of certain claims brought by plaintiff Merry A. Kogut derivatively on behalf of the Company alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty related to the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations. On February 11, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion for leave to submit supplemental briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss. On February 12, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ joint motion and defendants filed a supplemental memorandum of law asserting, in further support of their motion to dismiss, that the Kogut Settlement had the effect of resolving the claims in the In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On March 3, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion for approval and entry of a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal. On March 4, 2020, the Court granted the parties’ motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. The legal matters discussed above and others could result in losses, including damages, fines and civil penalties, and criminal charges, which could be substantial. The Company records accruals for these contingencies to the extent that they conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. In 2019, the Company recorded a $43.0 million charge and corresponding liability as of December 31, 2019, associated with the settlement agreement related to the Securities Class Action Litigation. As described further above under “In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation”, the charge and corresponding liability was expected to be settled through issuances of Company common stock and the contingent value rights. Accordingly, long-term portion of accrued legal fees and contingencies includes a $30.0 million liability with respect to an estimate of the contingent cash payments under the contingent value rights. On March 13, 2020, the court approved the settlement agreement resulting in the issuance of 6.7 million shares valued at $4.4 million settled on April 1, 2020 and the obligation to issue additional shares of Company common stock that are released as a result of the expiration of out of the money options through December 2024 of $1.2 million. In addition to the Company's common stock and the contingent value rights of $30.0 million, $27.5 million in insurance proceeds from the Company’s D&O insurance policies were remitted by the Company’s D&O insurers to the plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action Litigation in connection with the settlement. Such settlement only required the Company to use its best efforts to cause the D&O insurers to make such payments, and did not impose any obligation upon the Company to make any such payment out of its own funds. Accordingly, this amount from insurance was not included within the $35.5 million liability as of March 31, 2020. The liability decreased by $7.5 million from year end 2019 due to a decrease in the company’s stock price. Given the nature of the other litigation and investigations and the complexities involved, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation or investigation. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid. |
