Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	11. Litigation Savant Litigation On July 10, 2017, the Company filed a complaint against Savant in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware, New Castle County (the “Delaware Court”). KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Savant Neglected Diseases, LLC, No. N17C-07-068 PRW-CCLD. The Company asserted breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims against Savant arising under the MDC Agreement. See Note 8 - “Savant Arrangements” for more information about the MDC Agreement. The Company alleges that Savant has breached its MDC Agreement obligations to pay cost overages that exceed a budgetary threshold as well as other related MDC Agreement representations and obligations. In the litigation, the Company has alleged that as of June 30, 2017, Savant was responsible for aggregate cost overages of approximately $3.4 million, net of a $0.5 million deductible under the MDC. The Company asserts that it is entitled to offset $2.0 million in milestone payments due Savant against the cost overages. On July 12, 2017, Savant removed the case to the Bankruptcy Court, claiming that the action is related to or arises under the Bankruptcy Case from which we emerged in July 2016. In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 15-12628 (LSS) (Bankr. D. Del.). On July 27, 2017, Savant filed an Answer and Counterclaims. Savant’s filing alleges breaches of contracts under the MDC Agreement and the Security Agreement, claiming that the Company breached its obligations to pay the milestone payments and other related representations and obligations. On August 1, 2017, the Company moved to remand the case back to the Delaware Court (the “Motion to Remand”). On August 2, 2017, Savant sent a foreclosure notice to the Company, demanding that it provide the Collateral as defined in the Security Agreement for inspection and possession on August 9, 2017, with a public sale to be held on September 1, 2017. The Company moved for a Temporary Restraining Order (the “TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction in the Bankruptcy Court on August 4, 2017. Savant responded on August 7, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company’s motion for a TRO, entering an order prohibiting Savant from collecting on or selling the Collateral, entering our premises, issuing any default notices to us, or attempting to exercise any other remedies under the MDC Agreement or the Security Agreement. On August 9, 2017, the parties have stipulated to continue the provisions of the TRO in full force and effect until further order of the appropriate court, which the Bankruptcy Court signed that same day (the “Stipulated Order”). On January 22, 2018, Savant wrote to the Bankruptcy Court requesting dissolution of the TRO and the Stipulated Order. On January 29, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Motion to Remand and denied Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order, ordering that any request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order be made to the Delaware Court. On February 13, 2018 Savant made a letter request to the Delaware Court to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order. Also, on February 13, 2018, the Company filed its Answer and Affirmative defenses to Savant’s Counterclaims. On February 15, 2018 the Company filed a letter opposition to Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order and requesting a status conference. A hearing on Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order was held before the Delaware Court on March 19, 2018. The Delaware Court denied Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated order, which remain in effect. On April 11, 2018, the Company advised the Delaware Court that it would meet and confer with Savant regarding a proposed case management order and date for trial. On April 26, 2018 the Delaware Court so-ordered a proposed case management order submitted by the Company and Savant. The schedule in the case management order was modified by stipulation on August 24, 2018. On April 8, 2019, the Company moved to compel Savant to produce documents in response to the Company’s document requests. The parties thereafter agreed to a discovery schedule through June 30, 2019, which the Superior Court so ordered, and the parties produced documents to each other. On June 4, 2019, Savant filed a complaint against the Company and Madison in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Action”) seeking to “recover as damages that amounts owed to it under the MDC Agreement, and to reclaim Savant’s intellectual property,” among other things. Savant also requested leave to move to dismiss the Company’s complaint on the grounds that the Company’s transfer of assets to Madison was champertous. On June 10, 2019, the Company requested by letter that the Superior Court hold a contempt hearing because the Chancery Action violated the TRO entered by the Bankruptcy Court, the terms of which have been extended by stipulation of the parties. On June 18, 2019, the Superior Court held a telephonic status conference. The parties agreed that the Chancery Action should be consolidated with the Superior Court action, after which the Superior Court would address the parties’ motions. On July 22, 2019, the Company moved for contempt against Savant. Savant filed its opposition on July 29, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Superior Court denied the Company’s motion for contempt. On July 23, 2019, Savant moved for summary judgment on the issue of champerty. The Company filed its response and cross-motion for summary judgment on August 27, 2019. Savant filed its reply on September 10, 2019 and the Company filed its cross-reply on September 20, 2019. The motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. On August 17, 2020 the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion denying Savant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of champerty. On July 26, 2019, the Company moved to modify the previously agreed-upon discovery schedule to extend discovery through December 31, 2019, which the Superior Court granted. In subsequent orders, the discovery schedule was further extended until the end of June 2020. On July 30, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Savant’s Chancery Action. Savant filed an amended complaint on September 4, 2019, and the Company filed its opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss on October 11, 2019. That motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. On August 17, 2020 the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the Company’s motion to dismiss Savant’s Chancery Action. On August 19, 2019, Savant moved to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint. On September 27, 2019, the Company filed an opposition to Savant’s motion and, in the alternative, requested leave to file a second amended complaint against Savant. Savant consented to the filing of the second amended complaint and withdrew their motion to dismiss. Savant filed a partial motion to dismiss against a co-defendant on October 30, 2019. That motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. At the February 3, 2020 hearing, the Court reserved judgment on the parties’ reciprocal motions. On August 17, 2020, the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion granting in part and denying in part the Savant’s motion to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint. The Superior Court found the Company lacked standing because it assigned its interest to its co-plaintiff Madison Joint Venture LLC (“Madison”). However, the Superior Court found that Madison had standing to proceed. Although the Company was dismissed from all counts of the Superior Court Action it continues to possess an interest in the Superior Court Action because of its ownership of Madison and remains a litigant because of Savant’s Chancery Action. Savant’s motion to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint was denied in all other respects. On May 22, 2020, upon the request of the parties, the Superior Court stayed both Delaware actions until July 29, 2020. On June 30, 2020, Savant exercised 100,000 warrants in a cashless exercise resulting in 54,545 shares being issued to Savant. On July 24, 2020, the parties submitted a joint status report in the Delaware actions. The parties also requested a status conference with the Court to discuss moving the trial from October 2020 to some later time. On August 20, 2020, the Court held the requested status conference and ordered that a consolidated trial for the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action would be held in April 2021. The parties subsequently agreed to a five-day trial starting on April 12, 2021. On September 29, 2020, upon the request of the parties, the Superior Court revised the existing discovery schedule. Under the revised discovery schedule fact discovery closed on November 9, 2020 and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2020. On October 7, 2020, Savant moved for leave to amend its complaint in the Chancery Action to add a claim for breach of contract related to its exercise of 100,000 warrants on June 30, 2020. Savant claims that the Company’s issuance of 54,545 shares was insufficient under the warrant. On November 23, 2020, the Superior Court granted Savant’s motion for leave to amend its complaint in the Chancery Action. The Company answered the second amended complaint in the Chancery Action on December 11, 2020. On November 30, 2020, the Superior Court revised the discovery schedule to permit the Company to take additional discovery regarding Savant’s second amended complaint in the Chancery Action. Under this revised schedule, the Company had until December 18, 2020 to take additional discovery. Further, the deadline to complete expert discovery was moved to January 5, 2021. A consolidated trial for the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action remains scheduled for April 2021. On December 18, 2020, fact discovery closed. On January 5, 2021, the Company moved for leave to amend the Superior Court complaint to add Scott Freeman as a defendant. Savant opposed the motion for leave to amend on February 5, 2021. Briefing was completed on March 5, 2021. Further, the deadline for expert discovery closed. On January 19, 2021, the Company and Savant filed competing motions for summary judgment on their respective claims in the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action. Oppositions to the motions for summary judgment were filed on February 5, 2021 and replies were filed on February 24, 2021. Briefing is now complete and a hearing is scheduled for March 18, 2021. Private Placement Litigation On June 15, 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company and Dr. Durrant in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case caption is Alliance Texas Holdings, LLC et al. v. Humanigen, Inc. et al., Index No. 652490/2020 (“Alliance Texas Holdings Case”). The plaintiffs in the Alliance Texas Holdings Case comprise a group of 17 prospective investors introduced to Humanigen by Noble Capital Markets, Inc. (“Noble”), which had been engaged as a non-exclusive placement agent in connection with the Private Placement. The plaintiffs had indicated interest in purchasing shares of common stock in the Private Placement but, due to the strength of demand for shares from other prospective investors introduced to the company by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, the lead placement agent for the Private Placement, the plaintiffs were not allocated any investment amount. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and Dr. Durrant breached a contractual obligation to deliver shares of common stock to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek to recover for losses due to alleged fraudulent misstatements and the Company’s failure to deliver shares to them and seek equitable relief in the form of specific performance. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the Alliance Texas Holdings Case on July 24, 2020. The Parties completed briefing on the Motion to Dismiss on September 4, 2020. The Motion to Dismiss is currently being considered by the court. On June 19, 2020, Noble filed a separate complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, also arising from the Private Placement. On July 13, 2020, the Defendants removed Noble’s complaint to United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case caption is Noble Capital Markets, Inc. v. Humanigen, Inc., Case No. 9:20-CV-81131-WPD (the “Noble Case”). Noble’s complaint alleges that Humanigen breached the terms of its engagement letters with Noble by refusing to pay it the sales commissions it would have earned had its prospective investors received the entire allocation of shares sought in the Private Placement, as opposed to the $4 million of shares actually allocated to Noble and its clients. Noble is seeking payment in full of the commission, damages for Humanigen’s alleged tortious interference with Noble’s business relationship with the investors it introduced to Humanigen, but which were not allocated shares in the Private Placement, and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses in response to Noble’s complaint on February 2, 2021. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The Company believes that the claims made in each complaint are without merit, and it is prepared to defend itself vigorously.

Litigation

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

11. Litigation

Savant Litigation

On July 10, 2017, the Company filed a complaint against Savant in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware, New Castle County (the “Delaware Court”). KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Savant Neglected Diseases, LLC, No. N17C-07-068 PRW-CCLD. The Company asserted breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims against Savant arising under the MDC Agreement. See Note 8 - “Savant Arrangements” for more information about the MDC Agreement. The Company alleges that Savant has breached its MDC Agreement obligations to pay cost overages that exceed a budgetary threshold as well as other related MDC Agreement representations and obligations. In the litigation, the Company has alleged that as of June 30, 2017, Savant was responsible for aggregate cost overages of approximately $3.4 million, net of a $0.5 million deductible under the MDC. The Company asserts that it is entitled to offset $2.0 million in milestone payments due Savant against the cost overages.

On July 12, 2017, Savant removed the case to the Bankruptcy Court, claiming that the action is related to or arises under the Bankruptcy Case from which we emerged in July 2016. In re KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 15-12628 (LSS) (Bankr. D. Del.). On July 27, 2017, Savant filed an Answer and Counterclaims. Savant’s filing alleges breaches of contracts under the MDC Agreement and the Security Agreement, claiming that the Company breached its obligations to pay the milestone payments and other related representations and obligations. On August 1, 2017, the Company moved to remand the case back to the Delaware Court (the “Motion to Remand”).

On August 2, 2017, Savant sent a foreclosure notice to the Company, demanding that it provide the Collateral as defined in the Security Agreement for inspection and possession on August 9, 2017, with a public sale to be held on September 1, 2017. The Company moved for a Temporary Restraining Order (the “TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction in the Bankruptcy Court on August 4, 2017. Savant responded on August 7, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company’s motion for a TRO, entering an order prohibiting Savant from collecting on or selling the Collateral, entering our premises, issuing any default notices to us, or attempting to exercise any other remedies under the MDC Agreement or the Security Agreement. On August 9, 2017, the parties have stipulated to continue the provisions of the TRO in full force and effect until further order of the appropriate court, which the Bankruptcy Court signed that same day (the “Stipulated Order”).

On January 22, 2018, Savant wrote to the Bankruptcy Court requesting dissolution of the TRO and the Stipulated Order. On January 29, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Motion to Remand and denied Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order, ordering that any request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order be made to the Delaware Court.

On February 13, 2018 Savant made a letter request to the Delaware Court to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order. Also, on February 13, 2018, the Company filed its Answer and Affirmative defenses to Savant’s Counterclaims. On February 15, 2018 the Company filed a letter opposition to Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order and requesting a status conference. A hearing on Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated Order was held before the Delaware Court on March 19, 2018. The Delaware Court denied Savant’s request to dissolve the TRO and Stipulated order, which remain in effect.

On April 11, 2018, the Company advised the Delaware Court that it would meet and confer with Savant regarding a proposed case management order and date for trial. On April 26, 2018 the Delaware Court so-ordered a proposed case management order submitted by the Company and Savant. The schedule in the case management order was modified by stipulation on August 24, 2018.

On April 8, 2019, the Company moved to compel Savant to produce documents in response to the Company’s document requests. The parties thereafter agreed to a discovery schedule through June 30, 2019, which the Superior Court so ordered, and the parties produced documents to each other.

On June 4, 2019, Savant filed a complaint against the Company and Madison in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Action”) seeking to “recover as damages that amounts owed to it under the MDC Agreement, and to reclaim Savant’s intellectual property,” among other things. Savant also requested leave to move to dismiss the Company’s complaint on the grounds that the Company’s transfer of assets to Madison was champertous. On June 10, 2019, the Company requested by letter that the Superior Court hold a contempt hearing because the Chancery Action violated the TRO entered by the Bankruptcy Court, the terms of which have been extended by stipulation of the parties. On June 18, 2019, the Superior Court held a telephonic status conference. The parties agreed that the Chancery Action should be consolidated with the Superior Court action, after which the Superior Court would address the parties’ motions.

On July 22, 2019, the Company moved for contempt against Savant. Savant filed its opposition on July 29, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Superior Court denied the Company’s motion for contempt.

On July 23, 2019, Savant moved for summary judgment on the issue of champerty. The Company filed its response and cross-motion for summary judgment on August 27, 2019. Savant filed its reply on September 10, 2019 and the Company filed its cross-reply on September 20, 2019. The motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. On August 17, 2020 the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion denying Savant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of champerty.

On July 26, 2019, the Company moved to modify the previously agreed-upon discovery schedule to extend discovery through December 31, 2019, which the Superior Court granted. In subsequent orders, the discovery schedule was further extended until the end of June 2020.

On July 30, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Savant’s Chancery Action. Savant filed an amended complaint on September 4, 2019, and the Company filed its opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss on October 11, 2019. That motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. On August 17, 2020 the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the Company’s motion to dismiss Savant’s Chancery Action.

On August 19, 2019, Savant moved to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint. On September 27, 2019, the Company filed an opposition to Savant’s motion and, in the alternative, requested leave to file a second amended complaint against Savant. Savant consented to the filing of the second amended complaint and withdrew their motion to dismiss. Savant filed a partial motion to dismiss against a co-defendant on October 30, 2019. That motion is fully briefed and was argued at a hearing on February 3, 2020. At the February 3, 2020 hearing, the Court reserved judgment on the parties’ reciprocal motions. On August 17, 2020, the Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion granting in part and denying in part the Savant’s motion to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint. The Superior Court found the Company lacked standing because it assigned its interest to its co-plaintiff Madison Joint Venture LLC (“Madison”). However, the Superior Court found that Madison had standing to proceed. Although the Company was dismissed from all counts of the Superior Court Action it continues to possess an interest in the Superior Court Action because of its ownership of Madison and remains a litigant because of Savant’s Chancery Action. Savant’s motion to dismiss the Company’s amended Superior Court complaint was denied in all other respects.

On May 22, 2020, upon the request of the parties, the Superior Court stayed both Delaware actions until July 29, 2020.

On June 30, 2020, Savant exercised 100,000 warrants in a cashless exercise resulting in 54,545 shares being issued to Savant.

On July 24, 2020, the parties submitted a joint status report in the Delaware actions. The parties also requested a status conference with the Court to discuss moving the trial from October 2020 to some later time.

On August 20, 2020, the Court held the requested status conference and ordered that a consolidated trial for the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action would be held in April 2021. The parties subsequently agreed to a five-day trial starting on April 12, 2021.

On September 29, 2020, upon the request of the parties, the Superior Court revised the existing discovery schedule. Under the revised discovery schedule fact discovery closed on November 9, 2020 and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2020.

On October 7, 2020, Savant moved for leave to amend its complaint in the Chancery Action to add a claim for breach of contract related to its exercise of 100,000 warrants on June 30, 2020. Savant claims that the Company’s issuance of 54,545 shares was insufficient under the warrant. On November 23, 2020, the Superior Court granted Savant’s motion for leave to amend its complaint in the Chancery Action. The Company answered the second amended complaint in the Chancery Action on December 11, 2020.

On November 30, 2020, the Superior Court revised the discovery schedule to permit the Company to take additional discovery regarding Savant’s second amended complaint in the Chancery Action. Under this revised schedule, the Company had until December 18, 2020 to take additional discovery. Further, the deadline to complete expert discovery was moved to January 5, 2021. A consolidated trial for the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action remains scheduled for April 2021.

On December 18, 2020, fact discovery closed.

On January 5, 2021, the Company moved for leave to amend the Superior Court complaint to add Scott Freeman as a defendant. Savant opposed the motion for leave to amend on February 5, 2021. Briefing was completed on March 5, 2021. Further, the deadline for expert discovery closed.

On January 19, 2021, the Company and Savant filed competing motions for summary judgment on their respective claims in the Superior Court Action and Chancery Action. Oppositions to the motions for summary judgment were filed on February 5, 2021 and replies were filed on February 24, 2021. Briefing is now complete and a hearing is scheduled for March 18, 2021.

Private Placement Litigation

On June 15, 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company and Dr. Durrant in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case caption is Alliance Texas Holdings, LLC et al. v. Humanigen, Inc. et al., Index No. 652490/2020 (“Alliance Texas Holdings Case”). The plaintiffs in the Alliance Texas Holdings Case comprise a group of 17 prospective investors introduced to Humanigen by Noble Capital Markets, Inc. (“Noble”), which had been engaged as a non-exclusive placement agent in connection with the Private Placement. The plaintiffs had indicated interest in purchasing shares of common stock in the Private Placement but, due to the strength of demand for shares from other prospective investors introduced to the company by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, the lead placement agent for the Private Placement, the plaintiffs were not allocated any investment amount. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and Dr. Durrant breached a contractual obligation to deliver shares of common stock to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek to recover for losses due to alleged fraudulent misstatements and the Company’s failure to deliver shares to them and seek equitable relief in the form of specific performance. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the Alliance Texas Holdings Case on July 24, 2020. The Parties completed briefing on the Motion to Dismiss on September 4, 2020. The Motion to Dismiss is currently being considered by the court.

On June 19, 2020, Noble filed a separate complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, also arising from the Private Placement. On July 13, 2020, the Defendants removed Noble’s complaint to United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case caption is Noble Capital Markets, Inc. v. Humanigen, Inc., Case No. 9:20-CV-81131-WPD (the “Noble Case”). Noble’s complaint alleges that Humanigen breached the terms of its engagement letters with Noble by refusing to pay it the sales commissions it would have earned had its prospective investors received the entire allocation of shares sought in the Private Placement, as opposed to the $4 million of shares actually allocated to Noble and its clients. Noble is seeking payment in full of the commission, damages for Humanigen’s alleged tortious interference with Noble’s business relationship with the investors it introduced to Humanigen, but which were not allocated shares in the Private Placement, and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses in response to Noble’s complaint on February 2, 2021. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

The Company believes that the claims made in each complaint are without merit, and it is prepared to defend itself vigorously.