LEGAL MATTERS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
LEGAL MATTERS
LEGAL MATTERS	NOTE 10—LEGAL MATTERS The Company and its two original executives were three of some 30 defendants in a lawsuit filed by a former stockholder of Genaera Corporation, which was the predecessor of the Genaera Liquidating Trust, the party from which the Company purchased the worldwide rights to pexiganan, the active ingredient of the Product Locilex® on April 8, 2010. The complaint was filed on June 8, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 12-3265) by Alan W. Schmidt, individually and on behalf of former Genaera Corporation shareholders. Among others, the suit was filed against the Company, as well as John A. Skolas and Argyce LCC, who were responsible for the administration of the Trust and who sold pexiganan to the Company via a public auction. The defendants listed in the complaint included several individuals and companies formerly associated with Genaera Corporation, the Trust and/or Argyce LLC. Also included in the defendant group were several other pharmaceutical companies that were involved in acquiring the former drug-related assets of the Genaera Corporation. The complaint alleged, among other things, the Company and its two executives aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty alleged to have been committed by the former director and officers of Genaera Corporation before it was approved for dissolution by its shareholders and also Argyce, LLC, the trustee of the Liquidating Trust. Plaintiff claims that the Company and its executives aided and abetted a breach of the duties of the board of directors and the trustee under common law and under a certain trust agreement allegedly signed between Argyce, LLC, as the trustee, and the Liquidating Trust. With regard to the claims made against the Company and two executives, the plaintiff alleged, in pertinent part, that the Company's acquisition of the pexiganan rights was for alleged inadequate consideration, and that the Company and its management aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by the Genaera Corporation defendants who were formerly associated with Genaera Corporation and/or the Trust. The Company and its two executives filed a motion to dismiss the complaint within the prescribed time period. All of the other defendants in this litigation also filed motions to dismiss, and a court order granted each and every motion to dismiss, with prejudice, without leave to refile, on August 12, 2013 based on the argument that Plaintiff's claims were time barred. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals seeking reversal of the dismissal. On October 17, 2014, the Third Circuit Appellate Court, in a 2-1 decision with a strong dissenting opinion, reversed the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims based on the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitation. In a 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit held that more information was necessary to determine when Plaintiff should have been on notice of his claims to determine the applicability of the discovery rule, which could serve to extend the time frame in which Plaintiff could bring his claims. Due to the strong dissent, all Defendants filed the necessary documents requesting a petition for rehearing en banc, by the majority of the Third Circuit justices who are in active service. The Third Circuit denied the request for en banc hearing and remanded this case to District Court. Upon remand, the District Court recently requested any additional briefing on the numerous other grounds for dismissal raised by the plethora of defendants. The additional briefing was filed in January 2015 and March 2015, and the oral argument on alternative grounds is anticipated for the second quarter of 2015. The Company argued that Plaintiff's claims for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duties are not properly or sufficiently plead and/or are not cognizable under Delaware law. Even if the currently pending motions to dismiss are denied, the Company intends to vigorously defend Plaintiff's claims on the factual record, which it believes will prove that the Company is not liable to Plaintiff in any regard.

NOTE 10—LEGAL MATTERS

The Company and its two original executives were three of some 30 defendants in a lawsuit filed by a former stockholder of Genaera Corporation, which was the predecessor of the Genaera Liquidating Trust, the party from which the Company purchased the worldwide rights to pexiganan, the active ingredient of the Product Locilex® on April 8, 2010. The complaint was filed on June 8, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 12-3265) by Alan W. Schmidt, individually and on behalf of former Genaera Corporation shareholders. Among others, the suit was filed against the Company, as well as John A. Skolas and Argyce LCC, who were responsible for the administration of the Trust and who sold pexiganan to the Company via a public auction. The defendants listed in the complaint included several individuals and companies formerly associated with Genaera Corporation, the Trust and/or Argyce LLC. Also included in the defendant group were several other pharmaceutical companies that were involved in acquiring the former drug-related assets of the Genaera Corporation.

The complaint alleged, among other things, the Company and its two executives aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty alleged to have been committed by the former director and officers of Genaera Corporation before it was approved for dissolution by its shareholders and also Argyce, LLC, the trustee of the Liquidating Trust. Plaintiff claims that the Company and its executives aided and abetted a breach of the duties of the board of directors and the trustee under common law and under a certain trust agreement allegedly signed between Argyce, LLC, as the trustee, and the Liquidating Trust. With regard to the claims made against the Company and two executives, the plaintiff alleged, in pertinent part, that the Company's acquisition of the pexiganan rights was for alleged inadequate consideration, and that the Company and its management aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by the Genaera Corporation defendants who were formerly associated with Genaera Corporation and/or the Trust.

The Company and its two executives filed a motion to dismiss the complaint within the prescribed time period. All of the other defendants in this litigation also filed motions to dismiss, and a court order granted each and every motion to dismiss, with prejudice, without leave to refile, on August 12, 2013 based on the argument that Plaintiff's claims were time barred. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals seeking reversal of the dismissal. On October 17, 2014, the Third Circuit Appellate Court, in a 2-1 decision with a strong dissenting opinion, reversed the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims based on the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitation. In a 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit held that more information was necessary to determine when Plaintiff should have been on notice of his claims to determine the applicability of the discovery rule, which could serve to extend the time frame in which Plaintiff could bring his claims. Due to the strong dissent, all Defendants filed the necessary documents requesting a petition for rehearing en banc, by the majority of the Third Circuit justices who are in active service. The Third Circuit denied the request for en banc hearing and remanded this case to District Court.

Upon remand, the District Court recently requested any additional briefing on the numerous other grounds for dismissal raised by the plethora of defendants. The additional briefing was filed in January 2015 and March 2015, and the oral argument on alternative grounds is anticipated for the second quarter of 2015. The Company argued that Plaintiff's claims for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duties are not properly or sufficiently plead and/or are not cognizable under Delaware law. Even if the currently pending motions to dismiss are denied, the Company intends to vigorously defend Plaintiff's claims on the factual record, which it believes will prove that the Company is not liable to Plaintiff in any regard.