Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

License Agreements

In April 2014, Private Acer obtained exclusive rights to intellectual property relating to ACER-001 and preclinical and clinical data, through a license agreement with Baylor College of Medicine (“BCM”). Under the terms of the agreement, as amended, the Company has worldwide exclusive rights to develop, manufacture, use, sell and import licensed products as defined in the agreement. The license agreement requires the Company to make certain upfront and annual payments to BCM, as well as reimburse certain legal costs, make payments upon achievement of defined milestones, and pay royalties in the low single-digit percent range on net sales of any developed product over the royalty term.

In August 2016, Private Acer signed an agreement with Assistance Publique—Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou (“AP-HP”) (via its Department of Clinical Research and Development) granting the Company the exclusive worldwide rights to access and use data from a randomized, controlled clinical study of celiprolol. The Company used this pivotal clinical data to support a new drug application regulatory filing for EDSIVO^TM for the treatment of vEDS. The agreement requires the Company to make certain upfront payments to AP-HP, as well as reimburse certain costs and make payment of royalties in the low single-digit range on net sales of celiprolol over the royalty term.

In September 2018, the Company entered into a License Agreement for Development and Exploitation with AP-HP to acquire the exclusive worldwide intellectual property rights to three European patent applications relating to certain uses of celiprolol including (i) the optimal dose of celiprolol in treating vEDS patients, (ii) the use of celiprolol during pregnancy and (iii) the use of celiprolol to treat kyphoscoliotic Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (type VI). Pursuant to the agreement, the Company will reimburse AP-HP for certain costs and will pay annual maintenance fee payments. Subject to a minimum royalty amount, the Company will also pay royalty payments on annual net sales of celiprolol during the royalty term in the low single digit percent range, depending upon whether there is a valid claim of a licensed patent. Under the agreement, the Company will control and pay the costs of ongoing patent prosecution and maintenance for the licensed applications. The Company may terminate the agreement in its sole discretion upon written notice to AP-HP, and AP-HP may terminate the agreement in the event the Company fails to make the required payments after notice and opportunity to cure. Additionally, the agreement will terminate if the Company terminates clinical development, marketing approval is withdrawn by the health or regulatory authorities in all countries, the Company ceases to do business or there is a procedure of winding-up by court decision against the Company. The Company subsequently filed three United States patent applications on this subject matter in October 2018.

In December 2018, the Company entered into an exclusive license agreement with Sanofi granting the Company worldwide rights to osanetant, a clinical-stage, selective, non-peptide tachykinin NK3 receptor antagonist. The agreement required the Company to make a certain upfront payment to Sanofi, make payments upon achievement of defined development and sales milestones and pay royalties on net sales of osanetant over the royalty term. The Company plans to initially pursue development of osanetant as a potential treatment for iVMS where HRT is likely contraindicated.

Litigation

From time to time, the Company may become involved in litigation or proceedings relating to claims arising out of its operations.

In addition, on September 27, 2017, Piper Jaffray & Co. (“Piper”) filed a lawsuit against Private Acer, Piper Jaffray & Co. v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., Index No. 656055/2017, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The complaint alleges that Private Acer breached its obligations to Piper pursuant to an August 30, 2016 engagement letter between the parties and an April 28, 2017 addendum thereto by failing to pay Piper (i) a fee of $1,097,207 in connection with the financing which closed on September 19, 2017 for aggregate consideration of approximately $15.7 million and (ii) $67,496 in reimbursement for expenses incurred by Piper pursuant to the engagement letter. On November 10, 2017, Private Acer filed an answer and counterclaim in the lawsuit, denying Piper’s breach of contract allegation, asserting several defenses, and bringing several counterclaims, including claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Piper filed a reply to the counterclaims denying the essential allegations, and discovery has commenced. On February 22, 2019, Piper filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, Private Acer filed its opposition to Piper's motion on March 22, 2019. Piper subsequently filed its reply to Private Acer's opposition on April 5, 2019. Piper's motion is currently pending before the Court and oral argument on the summary judgment motion was held on September 4, 2019. No ruling on the motion has yet been issued by the Court. The Company has not recorded a liability as of September 30, 2019 because a potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.

In addition, on July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., against the Company, Chris Schelling and Harry Palmin, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that prior to the receipt of the Complete Response Letter from the FDA, Acer made material false and misleading statements or omissions which allegedly constitute securities fraud. On August 12, 2019, a shareholder’s derivative action, Gress v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting damages resulting from alleged breach of fiduciary duties, based on the same facts at issue in the Sell case. The Company believes both suits are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. No activity has occurred in either suit thus far. The Company has not recorded a liability as of September 30, 2019 because a potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.