Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies a. Legal Matters Stockholder Complaints: Class Action Stockholder Federal Securities Cases Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company’s statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology (“ASCO”) conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). An order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 26, 2018. On March 31, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and left plaintiffs with the ability to file an amended complaint within thirty ( 30 ) days. Counsel for the Company has consented to an extension of time for plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint for an additional thirty ( 30 ) days. On May 30, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging many of the same allegations that were set forth in the previously filed complaints, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss. A third purported class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed December 27, 2018. The complaint in this action alleges that the Company failed to disclose the results of observations made by the FDA during an inspection of the Company’s manufacturing facility in Morris Plains, New Jersey in August 2018. The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing to disclose the Form 483 inspection report issued by the FDA which set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during the inspection. Such observations purportedly included, inter alia, manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure in the batch record, and backdating of batch records. The complaint further alleges that the Company’s failure to disclose the Form 483 resulted in an artificially inflated price for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On February 8, 2019, a purported class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al. The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws based on claims that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making alleged misstatements in various press releases and securities filings from February 8, 2018 to November 7, 2018 and by failing to disclose the substance of its interactions with the FDA in connection with the Company's submission of its BLA for sacituzumab govitecan. Motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and to consolidate the Odeh and Choi complaints have been filed. On April 8, 2019, a putative stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action purportedly on behalf of the Company and against the Company’s board of directors and certain Company current and former officers, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Morris County); namely, Crow v. Aghazadeh, et al. The Crow complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other violations of law based on the same core allegations in the Odeh and Choi actions. The Crow complaint was served on the Company and other defendants on July 18, 2019. Stockholder Claim in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware On February 13, 2017, venBio commenced an action captioned venBio Select Advisor LLC v. Goldenberg, et al., C.A. (Del. Ch.) (the “venBio Action”), alleging that Company’s Board breached their fiduciary duties when the Board (i) amended the Company’s Amended and Restated By-laws (the “By-Laws”) to call for a plurality voting regime for the election of directors instead of majority voting, and providing for mandatory advancement of attorneys’ fees and costs for the Company’s directors and officers, (ii) rescheduled the Company’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “2016 Annual Meeting”) from December 14, 2016 to February 16, 2017, and then again to March 3, 2017, and (iii) agreed to the proposed Licensing Transaction with Seattle Genetics. venBio also named Seattle Genetics as a defendant and sought an injunction preventing the Company from closing the licensing transaction with Seattle Genetics. On March 6, 2017, venBio amended its complaint, adding further allegations. The Court of Chancery entered a temporary restraining order on March 9, 2017, enjoining the closing of the Licensing Transaction. venBio amended its complaint a second time on April 19, 2017, this time adding Greenhill & Co. Inc. and Greenhill & Co. LLC (together “Greenhill”), the Company’s financial advisor on the Licensing Transaction, as an additional defendant. On May 3, 2017, venBio and the Company and individual defendants Dr. Goldenberg, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Brian A. Markison, a director of the Company (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) entered into the Initial Term Sheet. On June 8, 2017, venBio the Company and Greenhill entered into the Greenhill Term Sheet. On February 9, 2018, the Court of Chancery approved the Settlement, and entered an order and partial judgment releasing all claims that were asserted by venBio against the Individual Defendants and Greenhill in the venBio Action and awarding venBio fees and expenses. On May 24, 2018 the remaining parties to the venBio Action participated in a mediation of the claims against Geoff Cox, Robert Forrester, Bob Oliver, and Jason Aryeh (the "Remaining Defendants"). The mediation was unsuccessful. The Remaining Defendants filed submitted motions to dismiss the claims against them in the venBio Action. On March 18, 2019, venBio amended its complaint, adding further allegations. The Remaining Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them on May 1, 2019. The Court of Chancery has scheduled oral arguments for the motion to dismiss on November 13, 2019. Insurance Coverage Arbitration: The Company has initiated an arbitration with three of its management liability insurers: Starr Indemnity & Liability Company (“Starr”), Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. (“Liberty”), and Berkley Professional Liability (“Berkley”) (collectively, “Insurers”). The arbitration arises from the Insurers’ refusal to cover $3,402,980 in attorneys’ fees and expenses paid to venBio pursuant to a December 1, 2017, settlement agreement between venBio, the Company, Dr. Goldenberg, Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Markison, and Greenhill to partially settle the venBio Action and fully settle the Federal Action and the Delaware Section 225 Action (the “venBio Fee Award”). The Insurers argue that the venBio Fee Award does not satisfy their policies’ definitions of covered “loss” because the policies only cover defense costs incurred by the Company. The Company counters that the venBio Fee Award is a covered settlement, not a claim for defense costs. Insurers also argue that they have no obligation to pay any defense costs or settlement incurred in the Federal Action or 225 Action because Immunomedics initiated those lawsuits. The Company’s position is that the Federal Action and 225 Action were defensive in nature and therefore covered because they were initiated to further the defense of the venBio Action. Additionally, Insurers argue the venBio Fee Award is not covered because the Company was required to obtain Insurers’ consent to enter into a binding term sheet in the venBio Action and to agree to pay the venBio Fee Award and that the Company failed to do so. The Company takes the position that Insurers at all times were aware of the developments in the venBio Action, that they sought consent to enter into the settlement, and that Insurers cannot show they were prejudiced by an any alleged failure to obtain Insurers’ consent. Liberty also contends that the Company’s insurance claim is not covered by Liberty’s 2015-16 insurance policy and should be covered by another company’s policy in a later policy period. The Company, Starr, and Berkley take the position that the policies treat the venBio Action as a related claim to the Fergus v. Immunomedics class action stockholder federal securities case, which was filed in 2016. Because of the similar allegation in the venBio Action and Fergus, the policies deem the venBio Action claim to be made at the same time as Fergus and covered by the 2015-16 policies. Starr is presently advancing the costs to defend the remaining claims in the venBio Action, i.e., those against the Company as Nominal Defendant and individual defendants Aryeh, Cox, Forrester, and Oliver. However, all Insurers have reserved their rights to contest coverage for any potential settlement of those claims. Breach of Contract: On November 16, 2018, Kapil Dhingra filed a complaint against Immunomedics, Inc., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the complaint, Dhingra alleges that Immunomedics breached agreements with Dhingra entered into in 2012 and 2013 that purportedly give him the right to purchase 50,000 shares of Common Stock of Immunomedics for a strike price stated in the agreements. On January 11, 2019, Immunomedics filed a motion for summary judgment and to stay discovery while the motion for summary judgment was pending. On February 5, 2019, Dhingra filed an opposition brief and an amended complaint adding as a plaintiff Kapital Consulting, LLC (together with Dhingra, "Plaintiffs"), and Plaintiffs filed a partial cross-motion for summary judgment. On April 4, 2019, the Court denied all motions without prejudice pending the completion of discovery. Immunomedics continues to dispute the allegations and will seek expedited disposition following discovery. b. Other matters: Immunomedics is also a party to various claims and litigation arising in the normal course of business. c. Our Licenses We have obtained licenses from various parties for rights to use, develop and commercialize proprietary technologies and compounds. Currently, we have the following licenses: Medical Research Council (“MRC”) - We entered into a license agreement with MRC in May 1994, whereby we have obtained a license for certain patent rights with respect to the genetic engineering on monoclonal antibodies. Our agreement does not require any milestone payments, nor have we made any payments to MRC to date. Our agreement with MRC, which expires at the expiration of the last of the licensed patents in 2020, provides for future royalty payments in the low single digits based on a percentage of product sales. On April 4, 2018, we entered into a license agreement with The Scripps Research Institute ("TSRI"). Pursuant to the license agreement, TSRI granted to us an exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-bearing license to use certain patent rights relating to sacituzumab govitecan. The license agreement expires on a country-by-country basis on the expiration date of the last to expire licensed patent rights in such country covering a licensed product. The license agreement may be terminated by the mutual written consent of us and TSRI, and TSRI may terminate the license agreement upon the occurrence of certain events, including, but not limited to if we do not make a payment due pursuant to the license agreement and fail to cure such non-payment within 30 days after the date of TSRI's written notice of such non-payment. As consideration for the license granted, we made a cash payment of $250,000 to TSRI. Additionally, we will pay TRSI (i) product development milestone payments that range from the mid six-digit dollar figure to the low seven-digit dollar figure and (ii) royalties on net sales of licensed products in the low-single digit percentage figure range capped at an annual amount. We have agreed to use reasonable efforts to develop and market the licensed products. d. Michael Pehl Separation On March 13, 2019, the Company entered into a separation agreement (the “Separation Agreement”) with Michael Pehl, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, President and member of the Company’s Board. Mr. Pehl resigned as Chief Executive Officer, President and member of the Company’s Board effective February 23, 2019. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement, Mr. Pehl will receive cash payments of approximately $1.0 million over an eighteen-month period. During the six months ended June 30, 2019 , the Company paid approximately $0.1 million to Mr. Pehl, and $0.9 million was accrued for as of June 30, 2019 . Mr. Pehl also released the Company from any and all claims with respect to all matters arising out of or related to Mr. Pehl’s employment by the Company and his resignation. e. Leases Our operating lease assets primarily represent manufacturing and research and development facilities, warehouses, and offices. Our finance leases primarily represent computer equipment and are not significant. Total operating lease expense was $352,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2019 , and $705,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2019 . For the three and six months ended June 30, 2019 , cash payments against operating lease liabilities totaled $327,000 and $654,000 , respectively. The discount rate used to determine the net present value of the leases at inception was 11.0% . This is the incremental borrowing rate that represents the rate of interest that the Company would expect to pay to borrow an amount equal to the lease payments under similar terms. Our leases both share a remaining lease term of 12.3 years, some of which may include options to extend the leases further. The Company considers these options in determining the lease term used to establish the right-of-use assets and lease liabilities. Supplemental Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet information related to leases was as follows (in thousands): Operating leases: June 30, 2019 Operating lease right-of-use assets $ 8,239 Current portion of lease liabilities $ 271 Non-current portion of lease liabilities $ 10,138 Total operating lease liabilities $ 10,409 Weighted average remaining lease term (years) 12.3 Weighted average discount rate 11.0 % Supplemental cash flow information related to leases was as follows (in thousands): Six Months Ended June 30, 2019 Non-cash lease expense $ 130 Change in operating lease liabilities $ 79 Maturities of lease liabilities as of June 30, 2019 were as follows (in thousands): Year 1 $ 1,405 Year 2 1,453 Year 3 1,499 Year 4 1,523 Year 5 1,552 Thereafter 12,117 Total lease payments 19,549 Less imputed interest (9,140 ) Total $ 10,409 |