COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On December 7, 2021 and March 29, 2022, two verified shareholders derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California purportedly on behalf of Ardelyx against certain of Ardelyx’s executive officers and members of our board of directors, captioned Go v. Raab, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09455-HSG, and Morris v. Raab, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-01988-JSC (together, the Go and Morris actions). The complaints allege that the defendants’ violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets for personally making and/or causing Ardelyx to make materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects. The complaint seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from two executive officers. On January 19, and April 27, 2022, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the Go and Morris actions, respectively, until resolution of the motion(s) to dismiss in the lawsuits captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG, and Siegel v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-06228-HSG (together, the Securities Class Actions). On October 25, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate and stay the Go and Morris actions, and on October 27, 2022, the court consolidated the Go and Morris action and stayed the consolidated action pending resolution of the anticipated motion(s) to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. The Securities Class Actions were voluntarily dismissed on March 5, 2025. The court dismissed the Go and Morris actions on April 30, 2025.

On July 17, 2024, in partnership with the AAKP and the NMQF, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against CMS, claiming that CMS has violated its statutory and regulatory authority under MIPPA, which established the ESRD PPS bundled payment system for dialysis services in 2008. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that moving XPHOZAH, along with all oral-only drugs, into the ESRD PPS is inconsistent with MIPPA’s statutory provision, and contradicts CMS’s own regulations. XPHOZAH and other oral-only drugs, are not administered by dialysis providers and cannot be taken during the delivery of maintenance dialysis. On November 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and denied plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, or in the Alternative, for Expedited Summary Judgment. Following the District Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, or in the Alternative, for an Injunction Pending Appeal, plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for an Administrative Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal, which was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Appellants filed an initial brief in the appeal on February 4, 2025; Appellees filed an initial brief on March 6, 2025; and Appellants filed a reply brief March 27, 2025. Both Appellees and Appellants filed a final brief on April 10, 2025. Oral argument in the case has been scheduled for September 25, 2025.

On August 16, 2024, a complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, captioned Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-12119 (D. Mass.). The complaint names the Company, Mike Raab, and Justin Renz as defendants and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, related to the our announcement on July 2, 2024 that it had chosen not to file an application for Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment for XPHOZAH (the “Yarborough Action”). The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees. The Court appointed Tate Wood as lead plaintiff on October 30, 2024. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2025, in which he added Susan Rodriguez, Laura Williams and Elizabeth Grammer as additional defendants and removed Justin Renz as a defendant. The lead plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of all those who acquired Ardelyx common stock between February 22, 2024 and July 1, 2024. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 14, 2025. Plaintiffs filed a response on May 13, 2025. Defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs’ response on June 23, 2025. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.

On September 6 and 13, 2024, certain Ardelyx shareholders filed two verified derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and/or 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against certain members of our board of directors and management based on substantially the same factual allegations in the Yarborough Action. The complaints seek unspecified damages and corporate governance reforms, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. On September 25, 2024, the Court consolidated the two derivative actions into the case In re Ardelyx, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-12302-LTS (D. Mass.). On November 7, 2024, the Court stayed the consolidated derivative action pending resolution of any and all motion(s) to dismiss in the Yarborough Action. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.

From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. As of June 30, 2025, there is no litigation pending that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.