COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Government Regulation

Our products and facilities are subject to regulation by a number of federal and state governmental agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (“CDSCO”), The Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”), and India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (“MoHFW”). The FDA, in particular, maintains oversight of the formulation, manufacture, distribution, packaging, and labeling of all of our

products. The DEA, Health Canada, and NCB maintain oversight over our products that are considered controlled substances.

Unapproved Products

Two of our products, Esterified Estrogen with Methyltestosterone (“EEMT”) and Opium Tincture, are marketed without approved NDAs or ANDAs. During the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022, net revenues for these products totaled $3.7 million and $4.0 million, respectively.

In addition, one group of products that we manufacture on behalf of a contract customer is marketed by that customer without an approved NDA. If the FDA took enforcement action against such customer, the customer may be required to seek FDA approval for the group of products or withdraw them from the market. Our contract manufacturing revenues for the group of unapproved products for the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022 were $0.6 million.

Legal proceedings

We are involved, and from time to time may become involved, in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries, investigations, government reimbursement related actions and litigation. These matters are complex and subject to significant uncertainties. Due to the inherent unpredictability of legal matters, including litigation, governmental and regulatory matters, particularly where the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate or when the proceedings, investigations or inquiries are in the early stages, we cannot accurately predict the outcome, or the effects of the legal proceedings described below. While we believe that we have valid claims and/or defenses in the litigation and other matters described below, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of the proceedings could result in losses, including substantial damages, fines, civil or criminal penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. We intend to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these matters, as appropriate; however, from time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in our best interests. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition.

Some of these matters with which we are involved are described below and in our 2022 Form 10-K, and unless otherwise disclosed, we are unable to predict the outcome of the matter or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible material losses. We record accruals for loss contingencies to the extent we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

From time to time, we are also involved in other pending proceedings for which, in our opinion based upon facts and circumstances known at the time, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to our results, and therefore remain undisclosed. If and when any reasonably possible losses associated with the resolution of such other pending proceedings, in our opinion, become material, we will disclose such matters.

Furthermore, like many pharmaceutical manufacturers, we are periodically exposed to product liability claims. The prevalence of these claims could limit our coverage under future insurance policies or cause those policies to become more expensive, which could harm our business, financial condition, and operating results. Recent trends in the product liability and director and officer insurance markets is to exclude matters related to certain classes of drugs. Our policies have been subject to such exclusions which place further potential risk of financial loss on us.

Legal fees for litigation-related matters are expensed as incurred and included in the condensed consolidated statements of operations under the selling, general, and administrative expense line item.

Commercial Litigation

In November of 2017, we were served with a complaint filed by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Arbor”), in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleged false advertising and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, Section 1125(a) of Title 15 of the United States Code, and Minnesota State law, under the premise that we sold an unapproved Erythromycin Ethylsuccinate (“EES”) product during the period between September 27, 2016 and November 2, 2018. The complaint sought a trial by jury and monetary damages (inclusive of actual and consequential damages, treble damages, disgorgement of ANI profits, and legal fees) of an unspecified amount. Discovery in this action closed on March 31, 2019 and trial was scheduled to commence on August 25, 2021. On August 3, 2021, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement with Arbor to resolve all claims related to Civil Action 17-4910, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which was pending trial in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Under the terms of the agreement, ANI paid Arbor $8.4 million and Arbor dismissed the action with prejudice. Neither party admitted wrongdoing in reaching this settlement. The Company paid the settlement from cash on the balance sheet.

On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic. On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints were substantively identical. The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that, beginning in 2012, Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the Company’s January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen. Under the terms of the 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement, Amerigen agreed to indemnify ANI for certain liabilities relating to Bystolic, including liabilities that arose prior to closing of the asset purchase. The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other defendants and the Company. at this stage of the litigation cannot reasonably estimate the potential damages that the plaintiffs will seek. The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL).  On April 23, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, on that date. The newly amended complaints contained substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the newly amended complaints. On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss and, on June 24, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed replies to those oppositions. On February 21, 2023, the Company and the defendants’ motions to dismiss all actions were granted with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal in the Second Circuit and the matter is pending. ANI continues to dispute any liability in this matter.

On March 24, 2021, Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Azurity”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against ANI, asserting that ANI’s vancomycin hydrochloride oral solution drug product infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,688,046. The complaint sought injunctive relief, damages, including lost profits and/or royalty, treble damages, and attorneys’ fee and costs. On February 15, 2022, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Azurity to resolve all claims related to this action. Under the terms of the agreement, Azurity granted ANI a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, royalty-bearing license under its patents to sell ANI product in the United States and dismissed the action with prejudice. In exchange, ANI paid Azurity $1.9 million of royalties from past sales and will pay Azurity a royalty equal to 20% of gross margin of sales of the ANI product for a contractually defined term.

On April 1, 2021, United Therapeutics Corp. and Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“UTC/Supernus”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against ANI, asserting that ANI’s proposed Treprostinil extended release drug product, which is subject to ANI’s Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 215667, infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,417,070, 7,544,713, 8,252,839, 8,349,892, 8,410,169, 8,747,897, 9,050,311, 9,278,901, 9,393,203, 9,422,223, 9,593,066 and 9,604,901 (“the Asserted Patents”). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fee and costs. ANI filed its answer and counterclaims on May 28, 2021, denying UTC/Supernus’ allegations and seeking declaratory judgment that ANI has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, that the Asserted Patents are invalid, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 26, 2022, the parties’ respective claims and counterclaims were dismissed pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.

On October 3, 2022, Azurity filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Novitium, asserting that Novitium’s manufacture, use, sale, importation and/or offer to sell Bionpharma Inc.’s (“Bionpharma”) enalapril maleate oral solution drug product (the “Product”) infringes U.S. Patents Nos. 11,040,023 and 11,141,405 (the “Novitium Action”). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, and an award of Azurity’s costs and expenses. On October 12, 2022, Bionpharma filed a motion in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to intervene on Novitium’s behalf in the litigation and on October 14, 2022, Novitium and Bionpharma filed a joint motion to transfer venue to the District of Delaware, which motion to transfer was granted on January 20, 2023. On March 27, 2023, the transferred Novitium Action (assigned Delaware Civil Action No. 23-163-MSG) was consolidated with the Delaware Third Wave Suits against Bionpharma (Civil Action Nos. 21-1286-MSG, 21-1455-MSG), which include Azurity’s infringement claims against Bionpharma involving the same patents asserted in the Novitium Action, as well as Bionpharma’s antitrust claims against Azurity. Trial is scheduled for June 17, 2024 and the parties are currently proceeding through fact discovery. Bionpharma has agreed to indemnify Novitium under the terms of its manufacturing and supply agreement for any damages, costs, and expenses relating to actual or alleged infringement of intellectual property rights or sale of the Product by Bionpharma. ANI and Novitium dispute any liability in this matter.

Ranitidine Related Litigation

State of New Mexico Litigation. In July 2020, ANI and Novitium were served with a complaint brought in the First Judicial Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico against manufacturers and sellers of ranitidine products. The complaint asserts a public nuisance claim and a negligence claim against the generic ranitidine manufacturer defendants, including ANI and Novitium. The public nuisance claim asserts that the widespread sale of ranitidine products in the state created a public nuisance that requires a state-wide medical monitoring program of New Mexico residents for the development of colorectal cancer, stomach cancer, gastrointestinal disorders and liver disease. As damages, New Mexico asks that the defendants fund this medical monitoring program. The negligence claims assert that the defendants were negligent in selling the product, essentially alleging that it was unreasonable to have the product on the market. With respect to that claim, New Mexico asserts that it paid for ranitidine products through state-funded insurance and health-care programs. On December 15, 2020, the case was removed to federal court and transferred to the In re Zantac multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. New Mexico moved for remand to state court. The MDL court granted the remand motion on February 25, 2021. On April 16, 2021, New Mexico filed an amended complaint in the New Mexico First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe County. It did not name ANI in the amended complaint, effectively voluntarily dismissing ANI from the action. Novitium is named as a Defendant in the amended complaint. According to Novitium’s records, Novitium did not ship any ranitidine product to New Mexico, and received no funds from any state funded health care plan or Medicaid. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted in the New Mexico litigation based primarily on preemption. The motion was denied in August 2021. A motion for reconsideration was denied on September 22, 2022. The case is currently in discovery. ANI and Novitium dispute any liability in this matter.

Federal Court Personal Injury Litigation. In June 2020, ANI was served with a personal injury complaint in the case of Koepsel v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9:20-cv-80882-RLR, filed in the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida, in which the plaintiff alleges that he developed kidney cancer in 2018 as a result of taking over the counter medication containing ranitidine. The Koepsel action was filed within the existing MDL concerning ranitidine-containing drugs pending in the Southern District of Florida, In re Zantac MDL, 20 MDL 2924. A Master Personal Injury Complaint (“MPIC”) in that MDL that was filed on June 22, 2020 also named ANI and Novitium as defendants. ANI was dismissed from the Koepsel case on August 21, 2020 and was dismissed from the MPIC on September 8, 2020. On December 31, 2020, after ANI was dismissed, the district court dismissed the MPIC claims against generic manufacturer defendants partially with prejudice and partially with leave to replead. The failure to warn and design defect claims were dismissed with prejudice on preemption grounds. An Amended MPIC was filed on February 8, 2021, which did not name ANI but did name Novitium. By opinion dated July 8, 2021, the district court dismissed all claims against the generic manufacturer defendants with prejudice on preemption grounds. That decision is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, by opinion and order dated December 6, 2022, the district court granted the brand manufacturer defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert testimony on general causation for the “designated cancers” that the plaintiffs’ leadership team claimed to be caused by ranitidine.  The district court also granted the brand manufacturer defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the plaintiffs had failed to produce admissible primary evidence of general causation. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

ANI and Novitium were named in other individual personal injury complaints filed in the MDL in which plaintiffs allege that they developed cancer after taking prescription and over the counter medication containing ranitidine. ANI was served with complaints in five of those additional cases: Cooper v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9:20-cv-81130-RLR (served September 30, 2020), Lineberry v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9:20-cv-81079-RLR (served August 20, 2020), Lovette v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9:20-cv-81040-RLR (served August 26, 2020), Hightower v. Pfizer, et al, MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9-20-cv-82214-RLR (served December 16, 2020) and Bird v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al., MDL No. 20-MD-2924, Case No. 9-20-cv-80837-RLR (served December 30, 2020). ANI informed counsel for the plaintiffs that ANI did not sell an over the counter ranitidine product and sold a generic prescription ranitidine product for a limited two-month period of time, from July 2019 to September 2019. ANI’s product was voluntarily recalled in January 2020. Each of the plaintiffs in the five pending cases alleges a cancer diagnosis prior to the time that ANI sold ranitidine, and we have informally sought dismissal from these cases on that basis. ANI was voluntarily dismissed from the Cooper, Lineberry and Lovette actions on November 20, 2020, from the Bird action on March 15, 2021, and from the Hightower action on March 29, 2021.

Prior to the district court’s July 8, 2021 preemption decision, Novitium had been named in 158 short form complaints filed by claimants in the MDL. Those complaints were effectively dismissed with prejudice with the MPIC on July 8, 2021. Counsel for the plaintiffs have been notified that Novitium did not sell an over the counter ranitidine product and sold a generic prescription ranitidine product for a limited period of time, from December 2018 until September 2019. Novitium’s product was voluntarily recalled in October 2019. Out of the 158 short form complaints, approximately 114 plaintiffs either were diagnosed with cancer before Novitium began manufacturing the product, only took over the counter ranitidine, or took ranitidine before Novitium began manufacturing it. Two of those 114 plaintiffs dismissed Novitium from their short form complaints. In light of the Court’s dismissal of all claims with prejudice, Novitium has not pursued dismissal of the short form complaints against it at this time. Following the district court’s Daubert decision, plaintiffs began filing additional short form complaints in the MDL. Novitium currently is named as a defendant in more than 700 short form complaints.

ANI and Novitium dispute any liability in these matters.

State Court Personal Injury Litigation

Illinois. On February 3, 2022, a complaint was filed in Cook County, Illinois, naming Novitium as a defendant. The complaint incorrectly identifies Novitium as a “repackager.” The case is styled Ross v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al. The complaint asserts claims of strict liability/failure to warn, strict liability/design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligent product design, general negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff alleges that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2017, before Novitium began selling generic ranitidine products, and that he took over the counter ranitidine that he purchased at Walgreens from 2008 to 2019. At this point, the allegations show that the plaintiff’s alleged cancer injury could not have come from a Novitium product. The generic manufacturer defendants filed a motion to dismiss on preemption grounds. That motion is pending.

In August 2022, the Keller Postman law firm commenced six multi-plaintiff actions in Illinois state court naming generic ranitidine manufacturers, including ANI and/or Novitium, as defendants.  Those cases are: (1) Jodee Gillespie v. Walgreen Co., et. al., Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 2022LA001007 (naming both Novitium and ANI); (2) John Jackson v. Walgreen Co., et. al., Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 2022LA001012 (naming Novitium); (3) Ayesha Salahuddin v. Walgreen Co., et. al.,  Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, Case No. 22LA0709 (naming Novitium); (4) Lashanda McGruder v. Walgreen Co., et. al., Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 22LA0710 (naming both Novitium and ANI); (5) Richard Devriendt v. Walgreen Co., et. al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 2022L007429 (naming Novitium); (6) Anthony Stigger v. Walgreen Co., et. al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 2022L007396 (naming both Novitium and ANI). The complaints allege causes of action for failure to warn, design defect, general negligence, loss of consortium and wrongful death.  Pursuant to an Order of the Illinois Supreme Court dated October 25, 2022, the pending ranitidine personal injury actions in Illinois have been consolidated in Cook County for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. Those pre-trial proceedings are pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County.  On January 12, 2023, Judge Trevino directed the plaintiffs to dismiss the multi-plaintiff actions and refile each individual plaintiff action under a separate case number. At a status conference held on February 16, 2023, the court required that the plaintiffs re-file within 60 days. The court also authorized use of a master complaint. Plaintiffs filed a master long-form complaint on March 9, 2023 naming Novitium as a defendant. ANI is not named as a defendant. The Keller Postman firm has confirmed that its clients are no longer pursuing claims against ANI. The counts in the master complaint include strict liability for failure to warn/design defects, general negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent storage and transport, apparent manufacturer liability, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint further alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Pursuant to the court’s standing order, the generic defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to IL 2-615 (failure to state a claim on the face of the complaint) on April 13, 2023, claiming preemption by federal law. In addition, the generic defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to meet Illinois’ fact pleading standards, as the complaint fails to specifically allege the misconduct of any generic defendant.

California.  In August and September 2022, the Keller Postman law firm commenced seven multi-plaintiff actions in California state court, Alameda County, naming generic ranitidine manufacturers, including ANI and/or Novitium, as defendants.  Those cases are: (1) Carlos Ascencio v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, et. al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case. No. 22CV016230 (naming both Novitium and ANI); (2) Andre Lebeau v. Actavis Mid Atlantic, LLC et. al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 22CV016448 (naming Novitium); (3) Roque Torres v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 22CV016338 (naming both Novitium and ANI); (4) Deborah Hinds v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 22CV016123 (naming both Novitium and ANI); (5) Mark Cruz v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 22CV016338 (naming both Novitium and ANI); (6) Bent Olsen v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 22CV016402 (naming both Novitium and ANI); (7) John Norman v. Actavis Mid Atlantic, LLC, et. al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 22CV018334 (naming Novitium).  The complaints allege causes of action for failure to warn, design defect, general negligence, loss of consortium and wrongful death. By stipulation and order dated December 28, 2022, the cases were transferred to an existing civil case coordination docket for pretrial proceedings (JCCP) pending in Alameda County. By order dated January 19, 2023, the court ordered that counsel for the plaintiffs must dismiss the individual plaintiffs (other than the first-named plaintiff) from each of the multi-plaintiff complaints and that each of the dismissed plaintiffs must re-file their claims in a single plaintiff complaint. As of April 25, 2023, ANI and Novitium had not yet been served with any of these single-plaintiff complaints. As of April 25, 2023, the Company is aware of three single-plaintiff cases in which Novitium is named as a defendant: David Duncan v. GSK Holdings, No. T23-507; Charmaine Sili v. GSK Holdings, No. T23-355; and Charles Crippen v. Boehringer, No. T23-349.

Pennsylvania.  In September 2022, two single-plaintiff complaints were filed in Pennsylvania state court, Philadelphia County, naming Novitium as a defendant: (1) William Titus v. Glaxo SmithKline LLC, et. al., Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Case No. 220902548; and (2) Jodi Woodard v. Ajanta Pharma USA, Inc., et. al., Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Case No. 220902329.  These complaints allege causes of action for negligence, failure to warn, negligent storage and transportation, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. On February 16, 2023, the Pennsylvania plaintiffs filed a consolidated long-form complaint against the generic defendants, Plaintiffs v. Actavis, et. al. Civil Action No. 1364. The long-form complaint names Novitium as a defendant. The long form complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, failure to warn, negligent storage and transportation, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, strict products liability, wrongful death and survivor actions, and loss of consortium. The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. The generic defendants filed their preliminary objections to Plaintiffs’ consolidated long-form generic complaint on March 20, 2023. The arguments advanced in the preliminary objections include preemption and failure to properly state a claim for fraud under Pennsylvania law. Arguments in support of the preliminary objections for all defendant groups were held on April 27, 2023 and the court ruling is pending.

ANI and Novitium dispute any liability in these matters.

Other Industry Related Matters

On or about September 20, 2017, the Company and certain of its employees were served with search warrants and/or grand jury subpoenas to produce documents and possibly testify relating to a federal investigation of the

generic pharmaceutical industry. We have been cooperating and intend to continue cooperating with the investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation.