COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

11.  COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

All our existing leases as of June 30, 2020 are classified as operating leases. As of June 30, 2020, we have thirteen material operating leases for facilities and office equipment with remaining terms expiring from 2021 through 2025 and a weighted average remaining lease term of 2.2 years Many of our existing leases have fair value renewal options, none of which are considered certain of being exercised or included in the minimum lease term. Discount rates used in the calculation of our lease liability ranged between 3.99% and 8.95%.

Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019 consisted of the following:

	Three Months Ended June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
(in thousands)	2020		2019		2020		2019
Operating lease costs	$	57	$	42	$	109	$	81
Variable lease costs		14		17		29		41
Total lease costs	$	71	$	59	$	138	$	122

A maturity analysis of our operating leases follows:

(in thousands)
Future payments:
2020	$	117
2021		172
2022		132
2023		61
2024 and thereafter		31
Total	$	513
Discount		(30)
Lease liability		483
Current lease liability		(201)
Non-current lease liability	$	282

Government Regulation

Our products and facilities are subject to regulation by a number of federal and state governmental agencies. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA”), in particular, maintains oversight of the formulation, manufacture, distribution, packaging, and labeling of all of our products. The Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) maintains oversight over our products that are controlled substances.

Unapproved Products

Two of our products, Esterified Estrogen with Methyltestosterone (“EEMT”) and Opium Tincture, are marketed without approved NDAs or Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”). During the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, net revenues for these products totaled $8.1 million and $10.9 million, respectively.

The FDA’s policy with respect to the continued marketing of unapproved products is stated in the FDA’s September 2011 Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 440.100 titled “Marketed New Drugs without Approved NDAs or ANDAs.” Under this policy, the FDA has stated that it will follow a risk-based approach with regard to enforcement against such unapproved products. The FDA evaluates whether to initiate enforcement action on a case-by-case basis, but gives higher priority to enforcement action against products in certain categories, such as those marketed as unapproved drugs with potential safety risks or that lack evidence of effectiveness. We believe that, so long as we comply with applicable manufacturing standards, the FDA will not take action against us under the current enforcement policy. There can be no assurance, however, that the FDA will continue this policy or not take a contrary position with any individual product or group of products. If the FDA were to take a contrary position, we may be required to seek FDA approval for these products or withdraw such products from the market. If we decide to withdraw the products from the market, our net revenues for generic pharmaceutical products would decline materially, and if we decide to seek FDA approval, we would face increased expenses and might need to suspend sales of the products until such approval was obtained, and there are no assurances that we would receive such approval.

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 these unapproved products for the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019 were $1.6 million and $1.5 million, respectively.

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. As such, 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 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 all 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 D&O insurance markets is to exclude matters related to certain classes of drugs, such as opioids. Our policies have been subject to such exclusions which place further potential risk of financial loss on the Company.

Commercial Litigation – Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC

In November of 2017, we were served with a complaint filed by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC, in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges 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 seeks a trial by jury and monetary damages (inclusive of actual and consequential damages, treble damages, disgorgement of ANI profit, and legal fees) of an unspecified amount. Discovery in this action closed on March 31, 2019. Trial has been postponed due to COVID-19 and is currently expected to be re-scheduled sometime in 2021. We continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Industry Related Litigation

In July 2020, we were served with a complaint brought 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 the Company. 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. We dispute any liability in this matter and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the litigation.

Product Liability Related Litigation

All manufacturers of the drug Reglan and its generic equivalent metoclopramide, including ANI, have faced allegations from plaintiffs in various states claiming bodily injuries as a result of ingestion of metoclopramide or its brand name, Reglan, prior to the FDA’s February 2009 Black Box warning requirement (“legacy claims”). All these original legacy claims were settled or closed out, including a series of claims in California that were resolved by coordinated proceeding and settlement. Our insurance company assumed the defense of the legacy claims and paid all losses in settlement of the California legacy claims. In March 2019, we were served with a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, adding us as a defendant in a complaint filed in July 2017 that is alleged not to have been part of the original settled legacy claims. This new claim, as well as the impact of the prior settlements on this claim, is currently being evaluated by the Company, its insurers, and its legal counsel.

In June 2020, we were 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 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 an existing multidistrict litigation concerning ranitidine-containing drugs pending in the Southern District of Florida before Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, In re Zantac MDL, 20 MDL 2924. A Master Personal Injury Complaint in that MDL that was filed on June 22, 2020 also names the Company as a defendant. We have informed counsel for the Koepsel plaintiff that we did not sell an over the counter ranitidine product, and have asked to be voluntarily dismissed from that action as well as the Master Personal Injury Complaint. We sold a generic prescription ranitidine product for a two-month period of time, from July 2019 to September 2019. Our product was voluntarily recalled in January 2020. We dispute any liability in this matter and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the litigation.

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.