Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	13.Commitments and Contingencies a. Employment Contracts Dr. David M. Goldenberg Effective July 1, 2015, the Company entered into the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Dr. Goldenberg pertaining to Dr. Goldenberg’s service to the Company as the Company’s Chairman of the Board, Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Patent Officer (the “Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement”). The Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement was to continue until July 1, 2020. On November 2, 2017 a stipulation and agreement of settlement, compromise, and release (the “Settlement Agreement”) was entered into between Dr. Goldenberg and other parties as described in Note 14 below. Effective immediately upon execution of the Settlement Agreement, Dr. Goldenberg resigned from all officer and other positions of the Company and all director, officer and other positions at any of the Company’s affiliates (other than Dr. Goldenberg’s position as a member of the board of directors of IBC Pharmaceuticals, the Company’s majority owned U.S. subsidiary). The Settlement Agreement provides that Dr. Goldenberg will abide by all post-termination covenants and obligations contemplated by the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement. In exchange for a release of claims as required by the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement and subject to compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Dr. Goldenberg is entitled to (i) termination payments in accordance with the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement for a termination without Good Cause after a Change in Control, (ii) accelerated vesting or extension of exercise period for equity awards already earned, pursuant to the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement, (iii) COBRA payments, and (iv) royalties or payment in accordance with existing agreements. The foregoing cash payments accumulate to approximately $2.4 million. In addition to these amounts an additional cash payment of approximately $1.8 million is in dispute. Additionally, the vesting of the grant of 1,500,000 Restricted Stock Units to Dr. Goldenberg under the terms of the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement, is also in dispute. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement, have agreed to arbitrate these disputes. The Company has agreed to pay the arbitrator in full for such arbitration, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Dr. Goldenberg and Ms Sullivan in connection with any such arbitration, up to a maximum amount of $650,000 combined. As of September 30, 2017 no expenses have been incurred regarding such arbitration. Under the Settlement Agreement Dr. Goldenberg is eligible to receive royalty payments on royalties received by the Company. For each fiscal year the Company shall pay Dr. Goldenberg a sum equal to a percentage of the annual royalties the Company receives on each of the products for which Dr. Goldenberg is an Inventor, and all products using, related to or derived from products for which Dr. Goldenberg is an Inventor. The percentage of royalties that the Company will pay to Dr. Goldenberg on each patented product will be determined based on the percentage of royalties that the Company must pay to external third parties, and payments are to continue for the life of the patent, as defined in the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement. In the event the Company completes a disposition of the Company’s undeveloped assets for which Dr. Goldenberg was an Inventor, the Company will pay Dr. Goldenberg a sum equal to at least twenty percent or more of the consideration the Company receives from each disposition. The Company’s obligation to compensate Dr. Goldenberg upon dispositions of undeveloped assets applies to all dispositions of such assets completed within the contract term or within three years thereafter, even if the Company actually receives the consideration at some time after the three (3) year period elapses. For the 2017 and 2016 fiscal years, Dr. Goldenberg received the minimum payment under the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement. Dr. Goldenberg also is compensated by IBC Pharmaceuticals as discussed in greater detail below. Cynthia L. Sullivan Effective July 1, 2014, the Company entered into the Fifth Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Cynthia L. Sullivan pertaining to Ms. Sullivan’s service to the Company as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer (the “Amended Sullivan Agreement”). The Amended Sullivan Agreement expired in accordance with its terms on July 1, 2017. On November 2, 2017 the Settlement Agreement was entered into (see Note 14 below) by Ms. Sullivan and other parties. Immediately upon the execution of the Settlement Agreement, Ms. Sullivan resigned from her position as a director of the Company and to resign from all office and director positions with any of the Company’s affiliates, effective as of the date of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement provides that Ms. Sullivan will abide by all post-termination covenants and obligations contemplated by the Amended Sullivan Agreement. In exchange for a release of claims as required by the Amended Sullivan Agreement and subject to compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Ms. Sullivan will be entitled to (i) termination payments in accordance with the Amended Sullivan Agreement for a termination without Good Cause after a Change in Control, (ii) accelerated vesting or extension of the exercise period for equity awards already earned, pursuant to the Amended Sullivan Agreement, and (iii) COBRA payments. The foregoing cash payments accumulate to approximately $3.1 million. In addition to this amount, an additional cash payment of $0.9 million is in dispute. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement have agreed to arbitrate this dispute. The Company has agreed to pay in full the arbitrator in such arbitration as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Dr. Goldenberg and Ms. Sullivan in connection with any such arbitration, up to a maximum amount of $650,000 combined. As of September 30, 2017 no expenses have been incurred regarding such arbitration. b. Change of Control Agreements Certain employees have Change of Control Agreements, whereby if a majority of a new board of directors is constituted by newly elected board members not endorsed by the Company’s current Board of Directors, and if, subsequent to such a change, there is a significant change in the responsibilities or employment status of these executives, then severance provisions included in their Change of Control Agreements could be triggered. These severance provisions could result in accelerated vesting of equity compensation and significant, unbudgeted, cash severance payments. c. Legal Matters The following is a summary of legal matters that are outstanding: Patent litigation: Immunomedics filed a first amended complaint on October 22, 2015 and a second amended complaint on January 14, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, against Roger Williams Medical Center (“RWMC”), Richard P. Junghans, M.D., Ph.D. and Steven C. Katz, M.D., seeking lost profits, unjust enrichment damages and compensatory damages resulting from the infringement of its patents. The second amended complaint alleges that RWMC and Dr. Junghans breached a Material Transfer Agreement (“MTA”) through which it provided to them a monoclonal antibody known as MN-14 and related materials. Defendants are alleged to have breached the MTA and to have been negligent by, among other things, using the materials beyond the agreed-upon Research Project, sharing confidential information, failing to provide Immunomedics with a right of first refusal, failing to notify Immunomedics of intended publications prior to publishing, and refusing to return the materials upon request. Immunomedics also asserts defendants: claims of conversion, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and infringement of three patents owned by Immunomedics. On January 28, 2016, defendants filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. On October 12, 2016, Immunomedics filed a Third Amended Complaint, and further added as defendants Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries TNK Therapeutics, Inc., BDL Products, Inc., and CARgenix Holdings, LLC. Defendants Junghans, Katz, and RWMC subsequently moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on November 14, 2016, but this motion was denied on January 4, 2017. On December 2, 2016, Sorrento, TNK, BDL, and CARgenix moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over them in New Jersey. The court granted this motion on January 25, 2017. On January 20, 2017, the court held a Markman hearing to construe the claims in the patents in suit. On February 28, 2017, the court issued an opinion and order finding, inter alia, that the term “effective amount” in the patents in suit is not indefinite and should be given its plain and order meaning, as proposed by Immunomedics, of “an amount capable of producing the claim result.” On May 11, 2017, the court entered an order referring the matter to mediation and designating Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (ret.) as the mediator. The mediation did not result in a settlement. The court entered a Supplemental Scheduling Order on October 10, 2017, which, inter alia, set a fact discovery end date of December 15, 2017. Stockholder complaints: Class Action Stockholder Federal Securities Cases Two purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had cancelled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An order of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. As of the date hereof, service has not been made on the Company. Stockholder Derivative Action in the Superior Court of New Jersey On October 3, 2016, plaintiff commenced an action captioned Rosenfeld v. Goldenberg, et al., No. L-2200-16, alleging the same underlying facts and circumstances as in the pending federal securities class action, the Fergus matter. Specifically, this action concerns the Company’s statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 ASCO conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaint alleges that these statements were false and misleading in light of the June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had cancelled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaint further alleges that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that certain directors and officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company. In addition to monetary damages, the complaint seeks to require the Company to reform its corporate governance and internal procedures. Service was effectuated on all defendants on April 7, 2017. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 19, 2017. In lieu of responding, an amended complaint was filed on October 13, 2017. John Neff was substituted for plaintiff Seymour Rosenfeld in the amended complaint. Defendants are to respond to the amended complaint on or before December 4, 2017. Class Action Stockholder Claim in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware On December 13, 2016, plaintiff commenced an action seeking to compel an annual meeting and relief for breaches of fiduciary duty for not holding such a meeting, captioned Desanctis v. Goldenberg, C.A. No. 12981-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.), alleging that the Company's Board of Directors failed to comply with Delaware law and breached their fiduciary duties when it rescheduled the Immunomedics 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders from December 14, 2016 to February 16, 2017. On December 22, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery refused to schedule an expedited hearing in the action and concluded that plaintiff failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he had pleaded a colorable claim and that there was a threat of irreparable harm. The Court further stated that the Complaint failed to demonstrate that the Board's actions were unreasonable when it rescheduled the Annual Meeting in response to venBio Select Advisor LLC’s (“venBio”) proxy contest. Stockholder Claim in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware On February 13, 2017, venBio commenced an action captioned venBio Select Advisor LLC v. Goldenberg, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0108-VCL (Del. Ch.) (the “venBio Action”), alleging that Company’s Board breached their fiduciary duties when the Board (i) amended the Company’s Amended and Restated By-laws (the “By-Laws”) to call for a plurality voting regime for the election of directors instead of majority voting, and providing for mandatory advancement of attorneys’ fees and costs for the Company’s directors and officers, (ii) rescheduled the Company’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “2016 Annual Meeting”) from December 14, 2016 to February 16, 2017, and then again to March 3, 2017, and (iii) agreed to the proposed Licensing Transaction with Seattle Genetics. venBio also named Seattle Genetics as a defendant and sought an injunction preventing the Company from closing the licensing transaction with Seattle Genetics. On March 6, 2017, venBio amended its complaint, adding further allegations. The Court of Chancery entered a temporary restraining order on March 9, 2017, enjoining the closing of the Licensing Transaction. venBio amended its complaint a second time on April 19, 2017, this time adding Greenhill & Co. Inc. and Greenhill & Co. LLC (together “Greenhill”), the Company’s financial advisor on the Licensing Transaction, as an additional defendant. On May 3, 2017, venBio and the Company and individual defendants Dr. Goldenberg, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Brian Markison, a director of the Company (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) entered into the Initial Term Sheet. On June 8, 2017, venBio, the Company and Greenhill entered into the Greenhill Term Sheet. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, if the Court of Chancery approves the settlement, all claims that were asserted by venBio against the Individual Defendants or Greenhill in the venBio Action will be released. The claims asserted against the remaining individual defendants (former directors Robert Forrester, Jason Aryeh, Geoff Cox and Bob Oliver) will remain stayed pending non-binding mediation. Lawsuit Against venBio Select Advisor LLC in the U.S. District Court (Delaware) (the “District Court”) On February 17, 2017, the Company commenced an action captioned Immunomedics, Inc. v. venBio Select Advisor LLC, No. 17-176-LPS (D. Del.) (the “Federal Action”), seeking for the District Court to invalidate the proxies solicited by venBio in furtherance of its contest for the election of directors of the Company. The Company named as defendants venBio and its then-nominees, Behzad Aghazadeh, Scott Canute, Peter Barton Hutt, and Khalid Islam. The Company alleged that venBio had conducted its proxy contest and solicited proxies in violation of the federal securities laws and regulations, namely by failing to timely file a Schedule 13D form indicating venBio’s intent to effectuate change at the Company, publishing early voting results of the Company’s annual election of directors, publishing improper statements about the then-incumbent Board, forming a “group” of like-minded stockholders without publicly disclosing the group, and soliciting proxies without disclosing the solicitations to the SEC. On February 21, 2017, the Company sought an injunction preventing, among other things, the venBio nominees from benefiting from the allegedly illegal shadow proxy contest, including, but not limited to, by asserting any claimed right to take office as a member of the Board until venBio made corrective disclosures and the stockholders were permitted time to consider them. On March 2, 2017, the District Court denied the Company the requested relief. On April 6, 2017, the District Court entered a stipulation and order pursuant to which the Company’s claims were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On April 17, 2017, Dr. Goldenberg, the Company’s Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Patent Officer and director, notified the District Court that he may maintain the claims initially brought by the Company. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all claims that were or could have been asserted in the Federal Action have been released. Upon execution of the Settlement Agreement, the parties submitted a stipulation dismissing the Federal Action with prejudice. On November 2, 2017, the District Court closed the Federal Action. Lawsuit Challenging the Results of the 2016 Election of Directors On March 3, 2017, six of the seven then-incumbent members of the Company’s Board commenced an action captioned Goldenberg, et al. vs Aghazadeh, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0163-VCL (Del. Ch.) (the “225 Action”), challenging the results of the election of directors at the 2016 Annual Meeting that took place on March 3, 2017, in which all four of venBio’s nominees won seats on the Company’s Board. The director-plaintiffs named as defendants venBio and its then-nominees, Behzad Aghazadeh, Scott Canute, Peter Barton Hutt, and Khalid Islam. The incumbent directors alleged the same underlying facts as the Company alleged in its lawsuit against venBio in federal court. On March 13, 2017, the Court of Chancery entered an order (the “Status Quo Order”) seating all four venBio nominees (with the three incumbent directors who also won election (based on the plurality vote standard), the “Status Quo Board”) and limiting the Company’s Board to actions within the “ordinary course of business,” unless either waived by the parties on a case-by-case basis or ordered by the Court of Chancery. On March 24, 2017, the defendants, venBio and its four nominees, moved to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs in the action have opposed this motion to dismiss, which remains pending. On April 7, 2017, three of the six plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims, leaving Dr. Goldenberg, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Markison as plaintiffs. On April 20, 2017, the parties agreed to permit the Status Quo Board to explore a potential financing plan for the Company and negotiate a termination of the Licensing Transaction. On May 3, 2017, the Parties entered into the Initial Term Sheet, pursuant to which, among other things, the Parties agreed to submit to the Court of Chancery a stipulation and proposed order lifting the Status Quo Order . On May 4, 2017, the Parties submitted that stipulation, which confirmed that the Status Quo Board is the lawful Board of the Company. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all claims that were or could have been asserted in the 225 Action have been released. Upon execution of the Settlement Agreement, the parties submitted a stipulation dismissing the 225 Action with prejudice. On November 6, 2017 the Court of Chancery entered an Order dismissing the 225 Action with prejudice. Material supplier litigation: On July 21, 2017, Lonza Sales AG (“Lonza”) commenced an action captioned Lonza Sales AG v. Immunomedics, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:17-cv-05384 regarding the development and manufacturing of an antibody intermediate (the “Product”) pursuant to a Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement (the “MSA”) dated on or about October 2015. Specifically, the disputes that have arisen between Lonza and the Company with respect to the MSA, include, but are not limited to: (i) the Company’s alleged failure and refusal to pay for Lonza’s services, and, delivery of the Product; and (ii) Lonza’s failure to provide the Product in an acceptable condition for the Company’s use. On or about September 29, 2017 the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Company expresses no opinion as to the probable outcome of this dispute. Other matters: Immunomedics is also a party to various claims and litigation arising in the normal course of business, which includes some or all of certain of its patents. While it is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, the Company believes that the resolution of all such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or liquidity, but could possibly be material to its consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period.

13.Commitments and Contingencies

a. Employment Contracts

Dr. David M. Goldenberg

Effective July 1, 2015, the Company entered into the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Dr. Goldenberg pertaining to Dr. Goldenberg’s service to the Company as the Company’s Chairman of the Board, Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Patent Officer (the “Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement”). The Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement was to continue until July 1, 2020.

On November 2, 2017 a stipulation and agreement of settlement, compromise, and release (the “Settlement Agreement”) was entered into between Dr. Goldenberg and other parties as described in Note 14 below. Effective immediately upon execution of the Settlement Agreement, Dr. Goldenberg resigned from all officer and other positions of the Company and all director, officer and other positions at any of the Company’s affiliates (other than Dr. Goldenberg’s position as a member of the board of directors of IBC Pharmaceuticals, the Company’s majority owned U.S. subsidiary). The Settlement Agreement provides that Dr. Goldenberg will abide by all post-termination covenants and obligations contemplated by the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement. In exchange for a release of claims as required by the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement and subject to compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Dr. Goldenberg is entitled to (i) termination payments in accordance with the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement for a termination without Good Cause after a Change in Control, (ii) accelerated vesting or extension of exercise period for equity awards already earned, pursuant to the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement, (iii) COBRA payments, and (iv) royalties or payment in accordance with existing agreements. The foregoing cash payments accumulate to approximately $2.4 million. In addition to these amounts an additional cash payment of approximately $1.8 million is in dispute. Additionally, the vesting of the grant of 1,500,000 Restricted Stock Units to Dr. Goldenberg under the terms of the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement, is also in dispute.

The Parties to the Settlement Agreement, have agreed to arbitrate these disputes. The Company has agreed to pay the arbitrator in full for such arbitration, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Dr. Goldenberg and Ms Sullivan in connection with any such arbitration, up to a maximum amount of $650,000 combined. As of September 30, 2017 no expenses have been incurred regarding such arbitration.

Under the Settlement Agreement Dr. Goldenberg is eligible to receive royalty payments on royalties received by the Company. For each fiscal year the Company shall pay Dr. Goldenberg a sum equal to a percentage of the annual royalties the Company receives on each of the products for which Dr. Goldenberg is an Inventor, and all products using, related to or derived from products for which Dr. Goldenberg is an Inventor. The percentage of royalties that the Company will pay to Dr. Goldenberg on each patented product will be determined based on the percentage of royalties that the Company must pay to external third parties, and payments are to continue for the life of the patent, as defined in the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement.

In the event the Company completes a disposition of the Company’s undeveloped assets for which Dr. Goldenberg was an Inventor, the Company will pay Dr. Goldenberg a sum equal to at least twenty percent or more of the consideration the Company receives from each disposition. The Company’s obligation to compensate Dr. Goldenberg upon dispositions of undeveloped assets applies to all dispositions of such assets completed within the contract term or within three years thereafter, even if the Company actually receives the consideration at some time after the three (3) year period elapses.

For the 2017 and 2016 fiscal years, Dr. Goldenberg received the minimum payment under the Amended and Restated Goldenberg Agreement. Dr. Goldenberg also is compensated by IBC Pharmaceuticals as discussed in greater detail below.

Cynthia L. Sullivan

Effective July 1, 2014, the Company entered into the Fifth Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Cynthia L. Sullivan pertaining to Ms. Sullivan’s service to the Company as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer (the “Amended Sullivan Agreement”). The Amended Sullivan Agreement expired in accordance with its terms on July 1, 2017.

On November 2, 2017 the Settlement Agreement was entered into (see Note 14 below) by Ms. Sullivan and other parties. Immediately upon the execution of the Settlement Agreement, Ms. Sullivan resigned from her position as a director of the Company and to resign from all office and director positions with any of the Company’s affiliates, effective as of the date of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement provides that Ms. Sullivan will abide by all post-termination covenants and obligations contemplated by the Amended Sullivan Agreement. In exchange for a release of claims as required by the Amended Sullivan Agreement and subject to compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Ms. Sullivan will be entitled to (i) termination payments in accordance with the Amended Sullivan Agreement for a termination without Good Cause after a Change in Control, (ii) accelerated vesting or extension of the exercise period for equity awards already earned, pursuant to the Amended Sullivan Agreement, and (iii) COBRA payments. The foregoing cash payments accumulate to approximately $3.1 million. In addition to this amount, an additional cash payment of $0.9 million is in dispute.

The Parties to the Settlement Agreement have agreed to arbitrate this dispute. The Company has agreed to pay in full the arbitrator in such arbitration as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Dr. Goldenberg and Ms. Sullivan in connection with any such arbitration, up to a maximum amount of $650,000 combined. As of September 30, 2017 no expenses have been incurred regarding such arbitration.

b. Change of Control Agreements

Certain employees have Change of Control Agreements, whereby if a majority of a new board of directors is constituted by newly elected board members not endorsed by the Company’s current Board of Directors, and if, subsequent to such a change, there is a significant change in the responsibilities or employment status of these executives, then severance provisions included in their Change of Control Agreements could be triggered. These severance provisions could result in accelerated vesting of equity compensation and significant, unbudgeted, cash severance payments.

c. Legal Matters

The following is a summary of legal matters that are outstanding:

Patent litigation:

Immunomedics filed a first amended complaint on October 22, 2015 and a second amended complaint on January 14, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, against Roger Williams Medical Center (“RWMC”), Richard P. Junghans, M.D., Ph.D. and Steven C. Katz, M.D., seeking lost profits, unjust enrichment damages and compensatory damages resulting from the infringement of its patents. The second amended complaint alleges that RWMC and Dr. Junghans breached a Material Transfer Agreement (“MTA”) through which it provided to them a monoclonal antibody known as MN-14 and related materials. Defendants are alleged to have breached the MTA and to have been negligent by, among other things, using the materials beyond the agreed-upon Research Project, sharing confidential information, failing to provide Immunomedics with a right of first refusal, failing to notify Immunomedics of intended publications prior to publishing, and refusing to return the materials upon request. Immunomedics also asserts defendants: claims of conversion, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and infringement of three patents owned by Immunomedics. On January 28, 2016, defendants filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. On October 12, 2016, Immunomedics filed a Third Amended Complaint, and further added as defendants Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries TNK Therapeutics, Inc., BDL Products, Inc., and CARgenix Holdings, LLC. Defendants Junghans, Katz, and RWMC subsequently moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on November 14, 2016, but this motion was denied on January 4, 2017. On December 2, 2016, Sorrento, TNK, BDL, and CARgenix moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over them in New Jersey. The court granted this motion on January 25, 2017. On January 20, 2017, the court held a Markman hearing to construe the claims in the patents in suit. On February 28, 2017, the court issued an opinion and order finding, inter alia, that the term “effective amount” in the patents in suit is not indefinite and should be given its plain and order meaning, as proposed by Immunomedics, of “an amount capable of producing the claim result.” On May 11, 2017, the court entered an order referring the matter to mediation and designating Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (ret.) as the mediator. The mediation did not result in a settlement. The court entered a Supplemental Scheduling Order on October 10, 2017, which, inter alia, set a fact discovery end date of December 15, 2017.

Stockholder complaints:

Class Action Stockholder Federal Securities Cases

Two purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had cancelled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An order of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. As of the date hereof, service has not been made on the Company.

Stockholder Derivative Action in the Superior Court of New Jersey

On October 3, 2016, plaintiff commenced an action captioned Rosenfeld v. Goldenberg, et al., No. L-2200-16, alleging the same underlying facts and circumstances as in the pending federal securities class action, the Fergus matter. Specifically, this action concerns the Company’s statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 ASCO conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaint alleges that these statements were false and misleading in light of the June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had cancelled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaint further alleges that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that certain directors and officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company. In addition to monetary damages, the complaint seeks to require the Company to reform its corporate governance and internal procedures. Service was effectuated on all defendants on April 7, 2017. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 19, 2017. In lieu of responding, an amended complaint was filed on October 13, 2017. John Neff was substituted for plaintiff Seymour Rosenfeld in the amended complaint. Defendants are to respond to the amended complaint on or before December 4, 2017.

Class Action Stockholder Claim in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware

On December 13, 2016, plaintiff commenced an action seeking to compel an annual meeting and relief for breaches of fiduciary duty for not holding such a meeting, captioned Desanctis v. Goldenberg, C.A. No. 12981-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.), alleging that the Company's Board of Directors failed to comply with Delaware law and breached their fiduciary duties when it rescheduled the Immunomedics 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders from December 14, 2016 to February 16, 2017. On December 22, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery refused to schedule an expedited hearing in the action and concluded that plaintiff failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he had pleaded a colorable claim and that there was a threat of irreparable harm. The Court further stated that the Complaint failed to demonstrate that the Board's actions were unreasonable when it rescheduled the Annual Meeting in response to venBio Select Advisor LLC’s (“venBio”) proxy contest.

Stockholder Claim in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware

On February 13, 2017, venBio commenced an action captioned venBio Select Advisor LLC v. Goldenberg, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0108-VCL (Del. Ch.) (the “venBio Action”), alleging that Company’s Board breached their fiduciary duties when the Board (i) amended the Company’s Amended and Restated By-laws (the “By-Laws”) to call for a plurality voting regime for the election of directors instead of majority voting, and providing for mandatory advancement of attorneys’ fees and costs for the Company’s directors and officers, (ii) rescheduled the Company’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “2016 Annual Meeting”) from December 14, 2016 to February 16, 2017, and then again to March 3, 2017, and (iii) agreed to the proposed Licensing Transaction with Seattle Genetics. venBio also named Seattle Genetics as a defendant and sought an injunction preventing the Company from closing the licensing transaction with Seattle Genetics. On March 6, 2017, venBio amended its complaint, adding further allegations. The Court of Chancery entered a temporary restraining order on March 9, 2017, enjoining the closing of the Licensing Transaction. venBio amended its complaint a second time on April 19, 2017, this time adding Greenhill & Co. Inc. and Greenhill & Co. LLC (together “Greenhill”), the Company’s financial advisor on the Licensing Transaction, as an additional defendant. On May 3, 2017, venBio and the Company and individual defendants Dr. Goldenberg, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Brian Markison, a director of the Company (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) entered into the Initial Term Sheet. On June 8, 2017, venBio, the Company and Greenhill entered into the Greenhill Term Sheet. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, if the Court of Chancery approves the settlement, all claims that were asserted by venBio against the Individual Defendants or Greenhill in the venBio Action will be released. The claims asserted against the remaining individual defendants (former directors Robert Forrester, Jason Aryeh, Geoff Cox and Bob Oliver) will remain stayed pending non-binding mediation.

Lawsuit Against venBio Select Advisor LLC in the U.S. District Court (Delaware) (the “District Court”)

On February 17, 2017, the Company commenced an action captioned Immunomedics, Inc. v. venBio Select Advisor LLC, No. 17-176-LPS (D. Del.) (the “Federal Action”), seeking for the District Court to invalidate the proxies solicited by venBio in furtherance of its contest for the election of directors of the Company. The Company named as defendants venBio and its then-nominees, Behzad Aghazadeh, Scott Canute, Peter Barton Hutt, and Khalid Islam. The Company alleged that venBio had conducted its proxy contest and solicited proxies in violation of the federal securities laws and regulations, namely by failing to timely file a Schedule 13D form indicating venBio’s intent to effectuate change at the Company, publishing early voting results of the Company’s annual election of directors, publishing improper statements about the then-incumbent Board, forming a “group” of like-minded stockholders without publicly disclosing the group, and soliciting proxies without disclosing the solicitations to the SEC. On February 21, 2017, the Company sought an injunction preventing, among other things, the venBio nominees from benefiting from the allegedly illegal shadow proxy contest, including, but not limited to, by asserting any claimed right to take office as a member of the Board until venBio made corrective disclosures and the stockholders were permitted time to consider them. On March 2, 2017, the District Court denied the Company the requested relief. On April 6, 2017, the District Court entered a stipulation and order pursuant to which the Company’s claims were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On April 17, 2017, Dr. Goldenberg, the Company’s Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Patent Officer and director, notified the District Court that he may maintain the claims initially brought by the Company. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all claims that were or could have been asserted in the Federal Action have been released. Upon execution of the Settlement Agreement, the parties submitted a stipulation dismissing the Federal Action with prejudice. On November 2, 2017, the District Court closed the Federal Action.

Lawsuit Challenging the Results of the 2016 Election of Directors

On March 3, 2017, six of the seven then-incumbent members of the Company’s Board commenced an action captioned Goldenberg, et al. vs Aghazadeh, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0163-VCL (Del. Ch.) (the “225 Action”), challenging the results of the election of directors at the 2016 Annual Meeting that took place on March 3, 2017, in which all four of venBio’s nominees won seats on the Company’s Board. The director-plaintiffs named as defendants venBio and its then-nominees, Behzad Aghazadeh, Scott Canute, Peter Barton Hutt, and Khalid Islam. The incumbent directors alleged the same underlying facts as the Company alleged in its lawsuit against venBio in federal court. On March 13, 2017, the Court of Chancery entered an order (the “Status Quo Order”) seating all four venBio nominees (with the three incumbent directors who also won election (based on the plurality vote standard), the “Status Quo Board”) and limiting the Company’s Board to actions within the “ordinary course of business,” unless either waived by the parties on a case-by-case basis or ordered by the Court of Chancery. On March 24, 2017, the defendants, venBio and its four nominees, moved to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs in the action have opposed this motion to dismiss, which remains pending. On April 7, 2017, three of the six plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims, leaving Dr. Goldenberg, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Markison as plaintiffs. On April 20, 2017, the parties agreed to permit the Status Quo Board to explore a potential financing plan for the Company and negotiate a termination of the Licensing Transaction. On May 3, 2017, the Parties entered into the Initial Term Sheet, pursuant to which, among other things, the Parties agreed to submit to the Court of Chancery a stipulation and proposed order lifting the Status Quo Order . On May 4, 2017, the Parties submitted that stipulation, which confirmed that the Status Quo Board is the lawful Board of the Company. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all claims that were or could have been asserted in the 225 Action have been released. Upon execution of the Settlement Agreement, the parties submitted a stipulation dismissing the 225 Action with prejudice. On November 6, 2017 the Court of Chancery entered an Order dismissing the 225 Action with prejudice.

Material supplier litigation:

On July 21, 2017, Lonza Sales AG (“Lonza”) commenced an action captioned Lonza Sales AG v. Immunomedics, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:17-cv-05384 regarding the development and manufacturing of an antibody intermediate (the “Product”) pursuant to a Development and Manufacturing Services Agreement (the “MSA”) dated on or about October 2015. Specifically, the disputes that have arisen between Lonza and the Company with respect to the MSA, include, but are not limited to: (i) the Company’s alleged failure and refusal to pay for Lonza’s services, and, delivery of the Product; and (ii) Lonza’s failure to provide the Product in an acceptable condition for the Company’s use. On or about September 29, 2017 the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Company expresses no opinion as to the probable outcome of this dispute.

Other matters:

Immunomedics is also a party to various claims and litigation arising in the normal course of business, which includes some or all of certain of its patents. While it is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, the Company believes that the resolution of all such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or liquidity, but could possibly be material to its consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period.