10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	In the ordinary course of business, we are at times subject to various legal proceedings and disputes. We make provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Such provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of any settlement negotiations, judicial and administrative rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. Unless otherwise disclosed, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the legal proceedings described below. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcome of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Securities Related Class Action Lawsuit On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the “Defendants”) on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of our bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)). After the court issued two separate orders granting the Defendants’ two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the court issued a third order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice. On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to the court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Lead plaintiff’s opening brief with respect to the appeal was filed on December 15, 2014 and the Defendants’ answering brief was filed on January 30, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 27, 2015. We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. Derivative Litigation On May 9, 2013, an alleged shareholder filed, purportedly on behalf of us, a derivative lawsuit, captioned Roy v. Steven W. King, et al., Case No. 13-cv-0741-PSG (RNBx), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain of our executive officers and directors. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar factual allegations as those asserted in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, described above (the “Securities Class Action”). The plaintiff is seeking, for our benefit, unspecified monetary damages and other relief. This case was subsequently transferred to the same court and judge handling the Securities Class Action lawsuit. On May 31, 2013, the judge issued an order administratively closing the case and inviting the parties to move to re-open after the final resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors. The complaint alleges that our directors and executives breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past three fiscal years, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past three fiscal years, of compensation to our non-employee directors. In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking recession of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the three fiscal years prior to the filing of the complaint and other monetary relief for our benefit. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on February 5, 2014. We believe that the derivative/class action complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. Other Legal Matters On September 24, 2012, we filed a lawsuit, captioned Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Clinical Supplies Management, Inc., Case No. 8:12-cv-01608 JST(AN) (C.D. Cal), against Clinical Supplies Management, Inc. (“CSM”), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In 2010, we had contracted with CSM as our third-party vendor responsible for distribution of the blinded investigational product used in our bavituximab Phase IIb second-line NSCLC trial. As part of the routine collection of data in advance of an end-of-Phase II meeting with regulatory authorities, we discovered major discrepancies between some patient sample test results and patient treatment code assignments. Consequently, we filed this lawsuit against CSM alleging, among other causes of action, breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising from CSM’s performance of its contracted services. We are seeking monetary damages. On June 5, 2014, CSM filed with the court a Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking partial summary judgment on our claims for damages on the grounds that the limitation of liability clauses contained in our master services agreement with CSM are valid and enforceable. Our opposition to CSM’s motion was filed with the court on June 23, 2014, and the hearing on the motion was held on July 28, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the court issued its order holding that the limitation of liability clause did not apply to our claims for active negligence, negligent misrepresentation and constructive fraud, but did apply to our causes of action for breach of contract, passive negligence and negligence per se. On March 27, 2015, CSM filed with the court a Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking partial summary judgment on our claims for damages on the grounds that the causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud are barred by the economic loss doctrine, as well as that the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and constructive fraud cannot be established as a matter of law. Our opposition to CSM’s motion was filed with the court on April 13, 2015 and CSM’s reply to our motion was filed on April 20, 2015. On June 22, 2015, the court issued its order granting CSM’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On September 8, 2015, we and CSM entered into a confidential settlement and release agreement to resolve all claims related to the complaint we filed on September 24, 2012 against CSM. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, (i) all claims asserted in the litigation by us will be dismissed with prejudice, (ii) each of the parties to the litigation will receive a full release of all claims, of any nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, and (iii) CSM will pay to us the sum of $600,000 within thirty (30) days. We will record the settlement amount when payment is received.

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

In the ordinary course of business, we are at times subject to various legal proceedings and disputes. We make provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Such provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of any settlement negotiations, judicial and administrative rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. Unless otherwise disclosed, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the legal proceedings described below. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcome of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Securities Related Class Action Lawsuit

On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the “Defendants”) on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of our bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)). After the court issued two separate orders granting the Defendants’ two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the court issued a third order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice. On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to the court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Lead plaintiff’s opening brief with respect to the appeal was filed on December 15, 2014 and the Defendants’ answering brief was filed on January 30, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 27, 2015. We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

Derivative Litigation

On May 9, 2013, an alleged shareholder filed, purportedly on behalf of us, a derivative lawsuit, captioned Roy v. Steven W. King, et al., Case No. 13-cv-0741-PSG (RNBx), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain of our executive officers and directors. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar factual allegations as those asserted in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, described above (the “Securities Class Action”). The plaintiff is seeking, for our benefit, unspecified monetary damages and other relief. This case was subsequently transferred to the same court and judge handling the Securities Class Action lawsuit. On May 31, 2013, the judge issued an order administratively closing the case and inviting the parties to move to re-open after the final resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss in the Securities Class Action.

On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors. The complaint alleges that our directors and executives breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past three fiscal years, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past three fiscal years, of compensation to our non-employee directors. In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking recession of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the three fiscal years prior to the filing of the complaint and other monetary relief for our benefit. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on February 5, 2014. We believe that the derivative/class action complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

Other Legal Matters

On September 24, 2012, we filed a lawsuit, captioned Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Clinical Supplies Management, Inc., Case No. 8:12-cv-01608 JST(AN) (C.D. Cal), against Clinical Supplies Management, Inc. (“CSM”), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In 2010, we had contracted with CSM as our third-party vendor responsible for distribution of the blinded investigational product used in our bavituximab Phase IIb second-line NSCLC trial. As part of the routine collection of data in advance of an end-of-Phase II meeting with regulatory authorities, we discovered major discrepancies between some patient sample test results and patient treatment code assignments. Consequently, we filed this lawsuit against CSM alleging, among other causes of action, breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising from CSM’s performance of its contracted services. We are seeking monetary damages. On June 5, 2014, CSM filed with the court a Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking partial summary judgment on our claims for damages on the grounds that the limitation of liability clauses contained in our master services agreement with CSM are valid and enforceable. Our opposition to CSM’s motion was filed with the court on June 23, 2014, and the hearing on the motion was held on July 28, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the court issued its order holding that the limitation of liability clause did not apply to our claims for active negligence, negligent misrepresentation and constructive fraud, but did apply to our causes of action for breach of contract, passive negligence and negligence per se. On March 27, 2015, CSM filed with the court a Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking partial summary judgment on our claims for damages on the grounds that the causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud are barred by the economic loss doctrine, as well as that the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and constructive fraud cannot be established as a matter of law. Our opposition to CSM’s motion was filed with the court on April 13, 2015 and CSM’s reply to our motion was filed on April 20, 2015. On June 22, 2015, the court issued its order granting CSM’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On September 8, 2015, we and CSM entered into a confidential settlement and release agreement to resolve all claims related to the complaint we filed on September 24, 2012 against CSM. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, (i) all claims asserted in the litigation by us will be dismissed with prejudice, (ii) each of the parties to the litigation will receive a full release of all claims, of any nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, and (iii) CSM will pay to us the sum of $600,000 within thirty (30) days. We will record the settlement amount when payment is received.