Commitments and

Contingencies

Legal Matters

Other than the matters that we have disclosed below, we from time to time become involved in various ordinary course legal and administrative proceedings, which include intellectual property, commercial, governmental and regulatory investigations, employee related issues and private litigation, which we do not currently believe are either individually or collectively material.

As legal and governmental proceedings are inherently unpredictable and, in part, beyond our control, unless otherwise indicated, we cannot currently reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can we estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. A future adverse outcome in any of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

Government Proceedings

Like other companies in the pharmaceutical industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States. As a result, interaction with government agencies occurs in the normal course of our operations. The following is a brief description of pending governmental investigations which we believe are potentially material at this time. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial payments, fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from any government investigation or proceeding, as well as a corporate integrity agreement or similar government mandated compliance document, whether we deem an investigation to be material or not at this time.

Department of Health and Human Services Investigation.

We received a subpoena, dated December 9, 2013, from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, in connection with an investigation of potential violations involving HHS programs. The subpoena was issued in connection with an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. The subpoena requests documents regarding our business, including the commercialization of Subsys. We are cooperating with this investigation and have produced documents in response to the subpoena and have provided other requested information.

HIPPA Investigation.

On September 8, 2014, we received a subpoena issued pursuant to HIPPA from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. The subpoena requests documents regarding Subsys, including our sales and marketing practices related to this product. We are cooperating with this investigation and have produced documents in response to the subpoena and have provided other requested information.

On or about June 23, 2015, a nurse practitioner located in Connecticut, who served on our speaker bureau in connection with our speaker programs designed to educate and promote product awareness and safety for external health care providers, pled guilty to violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with payments of approximately $83,000 from us. On or about February 18, 2016, one of our former sales employees located in Alabama pled guilty to a conspiracy to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in regards to two Alabama health care professionals who prescribed our product Subsys. Those two Alabama health care professionals served on our speaker bureau in connection with our speaker programs designed to educate and promote product awareness and safety for external health care providers. We continue to assess these matters to ensure we have an effective compliance program.

State Related Investigations.

We have received CIDs from each of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Illinois and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and ODOJ and we have also received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the Chief Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division of the State of New Hampshire. In addition, we understand that numerous physicians practicing in New Jersey have received subpoenas from the Department of Justice of the State of New Jersey in connection with these physicians’ interactions with our company. These CIDs and subpoenas request documents regarding Subsys, including our sales and marketing practices related to Subsys in the applicable state, as well as our patient services hub. We are cooperating with each of these investigations and have produced documents in response to these CIDs and related requests for information from each office.

In connection with the investigation by the ODOJ we have entered into a settlement agreement with the ODOJ referred to as an AVC, and have made monetary payments totaling approximately $1,100,000. The AVC requires us to maintain certain controls and processes around our promotional and sales activity related to Subsys in Oregon. This AVC expressly provides that we do not admit any violation of law or regulation. This settlement was reached as result of our cooperation with the ODOJ's investigation and after producing documents in response to certain CIDs and related requests for information from the ODOJ. All monetary payments in connection with this settlement were made prior to December 31, 2015.

Investigations of Physicians.

In addition to the above investigations that are specifically directed at our company, we have received governmental agency requests for information, including subpoenas, from the USAO of Connecticut, Eastern District of Michigan, Florida (Jacksonville), Kansas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Southern District of New York, Southern District of Alabama and Western District of New York regarding specific physicians that we have interacted with in those states.

Opioid Litigation

Many federal and governmental agencies are focused on the abuse of opioids in the United States and agencies such as the HHS have expressed their belief that the United States is in the midst of a prescription opioid abuse epidemic. Common prescription drugs that contain opioids are drugs such as oxycodone, hydrocodone and fentanyl. Our product, Subsys, is a fentanyl-based product in the TIRF class. Certain stakeholders in the healthcare community, regulatory bodies and governmental agencies may associate us with, or determine that we are a part of, this perceived opioid abuse epidemic. Like all TIRF products, our product is part of the mandatory TIRF REMS program which is designed “to ensure informed risk-benefit decisions before initiating treatment, and while patients are treated to ensure appropriate use of TIRF medicines” and “to mitigate the risk of misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose and serious complications due to medication errors with the use of TIRF medicines.” Nevertheless, from time to time, we may be included in litigation or investigations that are directed at the abuse of opioids in the United States. For example, in May 2014, Santa Clara and Orange Counties in California filed a complaint in state court in Orange County, California against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging claims related to opioid marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, and public nuisance. Despite the fact that we are not named specifically in the complaint and this lawsuit was recently stayed, we have received a preservation notice letter from the Office of the County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara. From time to time, we may be included in these types of litigations as a result of the fact that we market an opioid product.

With the exception of the ODOJ investigation which we have quantified above, we believe a loss from an unfavorable outcome of these governmental proceedings is reasonably possible and an estimate of the amount or range of loss from an unfavorable outcome is not determinable at these stages. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in these matters. However, responding to government investigations has and could continue to burden us with substantial legal costs in connection with defending any claims raised. Any potential resulting fines, restitution, damages and penalties, settlement payments, pleas or exclusion from federal health care programs or other administrative actions, as well as any related actions brought by shareholders or other third parties, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, these matters could also have a negative impact on our reputation and divert the attention of our management from operating our business.

Federal Securities Litigation

On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint (captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the Arizona District Court, against us and certain of our current and former officers. This complaint was brought as a purported class action, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making intentionally false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations, therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend this claim.

General Litigation and Disputes

Kottayil vs. Insys Pharma, Inc.

On September 29, 2009, Insys Pharma, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of our officers and the five directors who comprised the Insys Pharma board of directors as of June 2009, as well as their spouses, were named as defendants in a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, or the Arizona Superior Court, brought by Santosh Kottayil, Ph.D., certain of his family members and a trust of which Dr. Kottayil is the trustee. Dr. Kottayil formerly served as President, Chief Scientific Officer and a director of Insys Pharma, among other positions. The complaint brought a cause of action for statutory and common law appraisal of Dr. Kottayil’s Insys Pharma common stock. The cause of action for appraisal relates to a reverse stock split that Insys Pharma effected in June 2009, which resulted in Dr. Kottayil’s ownership position becoming a fractional share of Insys Pharma common stock. Following the reverse stock split, Insys Pharma cancelled all resulting fractional shares, including the fractional share held by Dr. Kottayil, and offered a cash payment in lieu of the fractional shares. The complaint also brought causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in the defendants’ dealings with Dr. Kottayil on the subject of his compensation and stock ownership in Insys Pharma. In January 2010, the plaintiffs added claims seeking to rescind Dr. Kottayil’s assignment to Insys Pharma of his interest in all of the fentanyl and dronabinol patent applications previously assigned to Insys Pharma and to recover the benefits of those interests. Dr. Kottayil was seeking, among other relief, the fair value of his Insys Pharma common stock as of June 2, 2009, compensatory and punitive damages, and rescission of all assignments to Insys Pharma of his interest in the patent applications, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.

In February 2010, Insys Pharma and the other defendants answered and filed counter-claims to Dr. Kottayil’s amended complaint. The counter-claims include actions for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentations and omissions with respect to the time during which Dr. Kottayil was employed at Insys Pharma. The counter-claims, among other relief, sought compensatory and punitive damages.

On January 29, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the Arizona Superior Court in which Insys Therapeutics, Inc. was also named as defendant in this lawsuit. This amended complaint filed by plaintiffs re-alleged substantially the same claims set forth in the prior complaint, except that plaintiffs also alleged that they were entitled to rescissory damages, added our majority stockholder, a private trust, as a defendant to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and revised their fraud claim against the Insys Pharma director defendants.

The trial commenced on December 1, 2014 with the evidence phase of the trial completed on January 29, 2015.

On June 8, 2015, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in its final trial ruling. Specifically, the court found (i) in favor of Insys Pharma, our majority stockholder, a private trust and four of the Insys Pharma directors who were on the board in July 2008 on plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of transactions the board approved in July 2008, (ii) found in favor of plaintiffs and against Insys Pharma, Inc., our majority stockholder, a private trust and three of the Insys Pharma directors who were on the board in June 2009 on plaintiffs’ claims under Delaware law and for breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the reverse stock split the board approved in June 2009 in the amount of $7,317,450, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and court costs, (iii) found in favor of two of the Insys Pharma directors who were on the Insys Pharma board as of June 2009 and against plaintiffs on plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims, (iv) found in favor of Insys Pharma and against plaintiff (Kottayil) on his claim for rescission of the patent application assignments that he entered in favor of Insys Pharma before and after his employment terminated, (v) found in favor of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. and against plaintiff on plaintiffs' claims of successor liability and fraudulent transfer, and (vi) found in favor of Kottayil and against Insys Pharma on Insys Pharma’s counterclaims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.

On October 2, 2015, the court entered a final judgment, awarding plaintiffs the amount of $7,317,450, along with pre-judgment interest from June 2, 2009, and post-judgment interest, from October 2, 2015, at the rate of 4.25% per annum, compounded quarterly and taxable costs in the amount of $93,163. On the same date, the court denied Kottayil’s request to submit an application for attorneys’ fees for his defense of the Insys Pharma counterclaims, finding that the request was premature.

As a result of the final ruling, we have accrued $9,567,000 at June 30, 2016, including $2,249,000 of estimated pre-and post-judgement interest. The final outcome of the appeal could cause the estimates to vary materially from the final award.

On October 20, 2015, plaintiffs appealed the foregoing judgment and on November 4, 2015, Insys Pharma and the other defendants against whom judgment was entered filed a notice of cross-appeal. The appeal and cross-appeal remain pending before the Court of Appeals for the State of Arizona.

On or around November 1, 2015 we received a notice from the Plaintiff’s attorneys demanding indemnification for legal and other defense costs alleged to have been incurred in connection with Dr. Kottayil’s defense of the Insys Pharma counterclaims in the amount of $3,630,000. We responded to these demands by, among other things, requesting for supporting documents and information from the Plaintiffs’ counsel which we have not received yet. Accordingly, we are still in the process of assessing the merit of such claims as well as evaluating the basis for the costs claimed. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome we have not accrued for this claim at this time; however, we believe that that it is reasonably possible that there may be a material loss associated with this claim and we currently estimate the range of the reasonably possible loss to be between $0 and the $3,630,000 claimed.

As of August 1, 2016, Plaintiffs have filed opening and reply and cross response briefs and we have filed our answering and cross-appeal brief and our reply in support of our cross-appeal. We intend to request an oral argument, after which the court may set a hearing date.

Except as it pertains to the $9,567,000 accrued for the dispute with Dr. Kottayil and the potential for damages in the Federal Securities litigation that we believe should be sufficiently covered by our director and officers insurance policies (once we have met any applicable retainage requirement under the applicable policy), we believe that the probability of unfavorable outcome or loss related to all of the above litigation matters and an estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, from an unfavorable outcome are not determinable at this time. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in these matters but the range possible outcomes on these matters is very broad and we are not able to provide a reasonable estimate of our potential liability, if any, nor are we able to predict the outcome of each litigation matter. Responding to each of these litigation matters, defending any claims raised, and any resulting fines, restitution, damages and penalties, or settlement payments as well as any related actions brought by shareholders or other third parties, could have a material impact on our reputation, business and financial condition and divert the attention of our management from operating our business.

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers

. On or about January 26, 2016, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (“Wayne”), which installs, repairs, and monitors fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems throughout Florida and provides health insurance benefits to its employees and covered dependents through its self-funded health benefit plan, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. Wayne is seeking injunctive relief and damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, against Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Gessler Clinic, P.A., Edward Lubin, M.D., UMR, Inc. and OptumRx, Inc., as defendants, for claims based under the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act pursuant to section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act pursuant to section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act under sections 501.201-501.203, Florida Statutes, common law fraud, and civil conspiracy, as well as breach of contract against UMR and OptumRx. We believe that the amount of any anticipated resolution of this matter will not be material to our financial results.

Markland.

On July 1, 2016, Robert N. Markland, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Carolyn S. Markland filed a complaint in the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County Florida against our parent, Insys Therapeutics, Inc. The complaint states it is wrongful death products liability action brought pursuant to Section 768.16, et seq. under Florida law in connection with a death occurring in July 2014 and includes a claim of negligent marketing. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for past expenses and costs, pain and suffering and loss of consortium and earnings. On August 4, 2016, we removed this case to federal district court in the Middle District of Florida. We intend to vigorously defend this matter and based on currently available information, we do not believe any resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

Material Agreements

In April 2015, we entered into an amendment to our manufacturing and supply agreement with DPT, which extends our existing manufacturing and supply agreement to produce Subsys until the end of 2020. In addition to extending the term, this amendment added certain minimum purchase commitments.

In October 2015, we entered into an amended and restated supply, development & exclusive licensing agreement with Aptar which, among other things, extended our exclusive supply rights to the current sublingual device, currently utilized by Subsys, as well any new device(s) jointly developed by the two companies for a period of seven years. In addition to extending the term, this amendment added certain minimum purchase commitments and requires certain tiered royalties as a percentage of net revenue to be paid by us ranging from less than one percent to the low single digits, commencing in March 2016 through the term of this agreement, from our sales of Subsys and future products that use the Aptar spray device technology.

In January 2016, we assigned our rights, title, duties and obligations of our manufacturing and supply agreement with DPT and our supply, development & exclusive licensing agreement with Aptar from our parent to our manufacturing subsidiary as part of a corporate restructuring.

In July 2016, we, through our manufacturing subsidiary, entered into a further amendment to our DPT manufacturing and supply agreement dated May 24, 2011. This amendment effectively eliminates any prior minimum purchase (and batch) obligations that had been set forth in this agreement and replaces it with a new annual purchase commitment of $4,000,000 per calendar year commencing January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. As a result, the cumulative effect related to this amendment reduces our aggregated minimum purchase commitments with DPT from $49,740,000 to $16,000,000.

The following table sets forth our aggregate minimum purchase commitments with DPT and Aptar under these agreements (in thousands):

Years ending December 31,
Remainder of 2016		1,790
2017		6,000
2018		7,500
2019		8,410
2020		8,550
Thereafter		4,330
Total	$	36,580