11.

Commitments and Contingencies

Facility Lease

We sublease our principal executive office in Henderson, Nevada under a non cancelable operating lease expiring April 30, 2014. We also lease our research and development facility in Irvine, California under a non cancelable operating lease expiring June 30, 2016. Each lease agreement contains certain scheduled rent increases which are accounted for on a straight-line basis.

As part of our Irvine facility lease renewal in 2009, the landlord agreed to contribute up to approximately $1.5 million toward the cost of tenant improvements. The tenant improvements were completed in 2010 at an aggregate cost of approximately $1.4 million, of which, $451,000 is being financed. This landlord contribution is being amortized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease as a reduction to rent expense. We also lease small administrative offices in Colorado, New Jersey, Westlake Village (California), Tokyo, Japan and Mumbai, India.

Licensing Agreements

We are developing almost all of our drug candidates pursuant to license agreements that provide us with rights in certain territories, among other things, to develop, sublicense, manufacture and sell the drugs. We are generally required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop the drugs, and are generally responsible for all development, patent filing and maintenance, sales and marketing and liability insurance costs, and are generally contingently obligated to make milestone payments to the licensors if we successfully reach development and regulatory milestones specified in the license agreements. In addition, we are obligated to pay royalties and, in some cases, milestone payments based on net sales, if any, after marketing approval is obtained from regulatory authorities.

The potential contingent development and regulatory milestone obligations under all of our licensing agreements are generally tied to progress through the various regulatory authorities’ approval process, which approval significantly depends on positive clinical trial results. The following items are typical of such milestone events: conclusion of Phase 2 or commencement of Phase 3 clinical trials; filing of new drug applications in each of the United States, Europe and Japan; and approvals from each of the regulatory agencies in those jurisdictions.

ZEVALIN licensing and development in the United States

In December 2008, we acquired rights to commercialize and develop ZEVALIN in the United States as the result of a transaction with Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (“CTI”). Pursuant to the transfer of the ZEVALIN assets from CTI to a joint venture, RIT Oncology LLC (“RIT”), in December 2008, RIT assumed certain agreements with various third parties related to ZEVALIN intellectual property. These currently effective agreements relate to the manufacture, use and sale of ZEVALIN in the United States and include (i) a license from Biogen, Idec, Inc. (“Biogen”) (ii) a license-back to Biogen for limited uses including fulfillment of a supply obligation to CTI, (iii) a sublicense from Biogen to certain ZEVALIN patents held by Genentech, Inc., (iv) a sublicense from Biogen to certain ZEVALIN patents held by GlaxoSmithKline and Glaxo Group Limited, and (v) a sublicense from Biogen to certain ZEVALIN patents held by Corixa Corporation, Coulter Pharmaceutical, Inc., The Regents of the University of Michigan and GlaxoSmithKline.

In accordance with the terms of such agreements, RIT is required to meet specified payment obligations including a commercial milestone payment to Corixa Corporation of $5.0 million based on ZEVALIN sales in the United States, which has not been met as of June 30, 2013, as well as U.S. net sales-based royalties of low to mid-single digits to Genentech, Inc. and mid-single digits to Corixa Corporation. Such agreements generally continue until the last to expire of the licensed patents unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of the agreement for bankruptcy or material breaches that remain uncured. The patents that are subject to the agreements expire between 2014 and 2019.

Asset Purchase Agreement between CTI and Biogen, ZEVALIN U.S.

In connection with the joint venture arrangement with CTI, we entered into an amendment to the original asset purchase agreement between CTI and Biogen, referred to as the CTI/Biogen Agreement, modifying future milestone payments. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, as amended, (i) upon the achievement of the specified FDA approval milestone, which was achieved in 2009, RIT (as successor to CTI) paid Biogen an additional amount of $5.5 million, (ii) RIT may be required to make an additional $10.0 million milestone payment upon the achievement of an additional FDA approval milestone, and (iii) RIT is required to make yearly royalty payments determined as a mid-single to mid-teen digits percentage of yearly net sales for the preceding year, increasing with the passage of time, with specific rates subject to confidential treatment pursuant to an order by the SEC. The agreement has an indefinite term and is no longer subject to termination; provided, however, that the royalty obligations automatically terminate upon the latest to occur of expiration of the subject patents, the sale by a third party of a biosimilar product in the U.S. or December 31, 2015. CTI’s rights and obligations, including its payment obligations to Biogen for royalties on net sales of ZEVALIN and an additional regulatory milestone payment, under both the CTI/Biogen Agreement and the amendment were assigned to and assumed by RIT in connection with the closing of the joint venture transaction.

Supply Agreement between Biogen and CTI, ZEVALIN U.S.

In connection with the joint venture arrangement with CTI, we entered into an amendment to the original supply agreement between Biogen and CTI, referred to as the CTI/Biogen Supply Agreement, modifying certain of the pricing and manufacturing technology transfer terms contained in the CTI/Biogen Supply Agreement and also providing that the term of the agreement may be shortened in some instances in the event of a mid-term manufacturing technology transfer. There are no milestone or royalty payments required pursuant to this agreement. The term of the agreement is until the manufacturing technology transfer is complete. Either party may generally terminate this agreement due to a bankruptcy of the other party or due to such other party’s material noncompliance with the agreement or certain other related agreements. CTI’s rights and obligations, including its payment obligations to Biogen, under both the CTI/Biogen Supply Agreement and the amendment were assigned to and assumed by RIT in connection with the closing of the joint venture transaction.

License and Asset Purchase Agreement with Bayer Pharma, ZEVALIN Ex—U.S.

On April 1, 2012, through a subsidiary, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Cayman, L.P., we completed the acquisition of licensing rights to market ZEVALIN outside of the U.S., referred to as the ZEVALIN Ex-US Rights, from Bayer Pharma AG, or Bayer. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Spectrum acquired all rights including marketing, selling, intellectual property and access to existing inventory of ZEVALIN from Bayer. We currently market ZEVALIN in the U.S. and this agreement expands our commercial efforts to the rest of the world. ZEVALIN is currently approved in more than 40 countries outside the U.S. for the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including countries in Europe, Latin America and Asia. In consideration for the rights granted under the agreement, concurrent with the closing, Spectrum paid Bayer a one-time fee of Euro 19 million or approximately USD $25.4 million, and will pay Bayer royalties based on a mid-teen digits percentage of net sales of the licensed products in all territories worldwide except the U.S., with specific rates subject to confidential treatment pursuant to an order by the SEC. Under the agreement, we also acquired access to existing inventory of ZEVALIN and concurrent with the closing, entered into certain ancillary agreements including but not limited to a transition services agreement to transition the business. Unless earlier terminated, the term of the agreement continues until the expiration of our royalty payment obligations which, in turn, run until the last-to-expire patent covering the sale of a licensed product in the relevant country or fifteen (15) years from the date of first commercial sale of the licensed product in such country, whichever is longer. This agreement may be terminated in the event of a material default, which is defined to include: (i) our failure to timely pay royalty payments under this agreement or payments under certain related agreements; (ii) our insolvency; and (iii) our breach and the resulting termination of an Amended and Restated License Agreement between Biogen and Bayer, dated as of January 16, 2012.

Amended and Restated License Agreement with Merck & Cie AG, FUSILEV.

In May 2006, we amended and restated a license agreement with Merck & Cie AG, a Swiss corporation, which we assumed in connection with the acquisition of the assets of Targent. Pursuant to the license agreement with Merck & Cie, we obtained the exclusive license to use regulatory filings related to FUSILEV and a non-exclusive license under certain patents and know-how related to FUSILEV to develop, make, and have made, use, sell and have sold FUSILEV in the field of oncology in North America. In addition, we have the right of first opportunity to negotiate an exclusive license to manufacture, have manufactured, use and sell FUSILEV products outside the field of oncology in North America. Also, under the terms of the license agreement, we paid Merck & Cie $100,000 for the achievement of FDA approval of an injectable form of FUSILEV. Merck & Cie is also eligible to receive a $200,000 payment upon achievement of FDA approval of an oral form of FUSILEV, in addition to royalties in the mid-single digits based on a percentage of net sales. The term of the license agreement is determined on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until royalties are no longer owed under the license agreement. The license agreement expires in its entirety after the date that we no longer owe any royalties to Merck & Cie. We have the unilateral right to terminate the license agreement, in its entirety or on a product-by-product or country-by-country basis, at any time for any reason and either party may terminate the license agreement due to material breach of the terms of the license agreement by or insolvency of the other party.

Asset Purchase Agreement with Targent, Inc., FUSILEV

In March 2006, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Targent, Inc. (“Targent”). As part of the consideration for the purchase of certain assets, we agreed to pay milestone payments to Targent upon the achievement of certain regulatory events as well as for certain sales levels for FUSILEV within a calendar year. In connection with the achievement of the FDA approval milestone in April 2011, we issued an aggregate of 733,715 shares of common stock to certain of Targent’s stockholders, as directed by Targent. We capitalized $6.3 million associated with this milestone as intangible assets during 2011 which is being amortized over the estimated useful life of 8.7 years.

In addition, in connection with the achievement of the first sales milestone of $40 million in May 2011 we issued 577,367 shares of common stock to certain of Targent’s stockholders (which was equivalent value to approximately $5 million in cash), as directed by Targent. In September 2011, we achieved the second and final sales milestone of $100 million and paid $5 million in cash for an aggregate with the first sales milestone of $10.0 million. We capitalized the $10.0 million associated with these milestones as intangible assets. These intangible assets are being amortized over the estimated useful life of 8.6 years. As of December 2011, we have met all of the contractual milestones related to FUSILEV.

License Agreement with Sloan-Kettering Institute, SRI International and Southern Research Institute, FOLOTYN

In December 2002, Allos entered into the FOLOTYN License Agreement with Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, SRI International and Southern Research Institute. As a result of Allos becoming our wholly owned subsidiary effective September 5, 2012, on a consolidated basis we are bound by the FOLOTYN License Agreement under which we obtained exclusive worldwide rights to a portfolio of patents and patent applications related to FOLOTYN and its uses. Under the terms of the FOLOTYN License Agreement, we are required to fund all development programs and will have sole responsibility for all commercialization activities. In addition, we pay the licensors royalties based on worldwide graduated annual levels of net sales of FOLOTYN, net of actual rebates, chargebacks and returns, or distributor sales, which may be different than our net product revenue recognized in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, or sublicense revenues arising from sublicensing the product, if and when such sales or sublicenses occur. For purposes of the FOLOTYN License Agreement, annual worldwide sales consists of our distributor sales and annual net sales of FOLOTYN in the Mundipharma Territories, as reported to us under the Mundipharma Collaboration Agreement, if and when such sales occur in the Mundipharma Territories. Royalties are 8% of annual worldwide sales up to $150.0 million; 9% of annual worldwide sales of $150.0 million through $300.0 million; and 11% of annual worldwide sales in excess of $300.0 million. For the six months ended June 30, 2013, our royalties were 8% of our net distributor sales. As of June 30, 2013, accrued royalties were $1.2 million and are included in accounts payable and accrued obligations on the consolidated balance sheet.

License Agreement with Cydex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Captisol-enabled, Propyleneglycol-free Melphalan

See Note 2 above.

Exclusive Development and Commercialization Collaboration Agreement with Allergan, apaziquone

In October 2008, we signed an exclusive development and commercialization collaboration agreement with Allergan for apaziquone. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Allergan paid us an up-front non-refundable $41.5 million at closing and is obligated to make additional payments based on the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercialization milestones. Under the terms of the original agreement, we were entitled to payment of $57.5 million and $245 million upon achievement of certain regulatory and commercialization milestones, respectively, of which $1.5 million has been achieved following completion of enrollment in clinical trials, per the terms of the license, development, supply and distribution agreement. Also, Allergan agreed to pay us tiered royalties starting in the mid-teens based on a percentage of net sales of apaziquone outside of the U.S. and Asia, which specific rates are subject to confidential treatment pursuant to an order by the SEC.

On January 29, 2013, we entered into a second amendment to the license, development, supply and distribution agreement with Allergan to amend the agreement and reacquire the rights originally licensed to Allergan in the U.S. Europe and other territories in exchange for a tiered single digit royalty on certain products containing Apaziquone, and relieved Allergan of its obligations for development, commercialization and other activities. As a result of the second amendment to the agreement with Allergan, Allergan has no remaining obligations to the Company and Spectrum has no remaining performance obligations to Allergan. However, the Company is obligated to pay Allergan a tiered single-digit royalty not to exceed mid-single digits based upon the net sales, when and if earned, of certain products containing Apaziquone in specified territories. Additionally, the Company is obligated to pay any royalties or other payments due to licensors of the Licensed Intellectual Property (as defined in the agreement) as well as to provide indemnification of Allergan for claims arising from the manufacture, development or commercialization of pharmaceutical products containing Apaziquone by the Company. We recognized $8.3 million, the remaining balance of deferred revenue related to this agreement, during the three months ended March 31, 2013 and six months ended June 30, 2013.

Collaboration Agreement with Nippon Kayaku Co. LTD., apaziquone

In November 2009, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Nippon Kayaku Co., LTD. (“Nippon Kayaku”) for the development and commercialization of apaziquone in Asia, except North and South Korea (the “Nippon Kayaku Territory”). In addition, Nippon Kayaku received exclusive rights to apaziquone for the treatment of non muscle invasive bladder cancer in Asia (other than North and South Korea), including Japan and China. Nippon Kayaku will conduct apaziquone clinical trials in the Nippon Kayaku Territory pursuant to a development plan. Further, Nippon Kayaku will be responsible for all expenses relating to the development and commercialization of apaziquone in the Nippon Kayaku Territory.

Pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Nippon Kayaku paid Spectrum an upfront fee of $15 million and is obligated to make additional payments based on the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercialization milestones. Under the terms of the agreement, we are entitled to payment of $10 million and $126 million upon achievement of certain regulatory and commercialization milestones, respectively. Also, Nippon Kayaku has agreed to pay Spectrum royalties based on a percentage of net sales of the subject products in the defined territory in the mid-teen digits, which specific royalty rates are subject to confidential treatment pursuant to an order by the SEC. The agreement will remain in effect, on a country-by-country basis, until the expiration of the obligation of Nippon Kayaku to pay royalties on sales of the subject products in such country. Nippon Kayaku may terminate the agreement at its election upon nine months notice to Spectrum. Additionally, either party may terminate the agreement for an uncured material breach by the other party.

Our license agreement with Nippon Kayaku provides for payments to us upon the achievement of development milestones, such as the completion of clinical trials or regulatory submissions, approvals by health authorities, and commercial launches of drug candidates. Given the challenges inherent in developing and obtaining approval for drug products and in achieving commercial launches, there was substantial uncertainty whether any such milestones would be achieved at the time of execution of such license agreement. In addition, we continue to evaluate whether the development milestones, none of which have been achieved to date, meet the remaining criteria to be considered substantive. As a result of our analysis, we consider our development milestones under the Nippon Kayaku license agreement to be substantive and, accordingly, we expect to recognize as revenue future payments received from such milestones only if and as each milestone is achieved.

Licensing and Collaboration Agreement with TopoTarget, belinostat

In February 2010, we entered into a licensing and collaboration agreement with TopoTarget, for the development and commercialization of belinostat, pursuant to which we agreed to collaboration for the development and commercialization of belinostat. The agreement provides that we have the exclusive right to make, develop and commercialize belinostat in North America and India, with an option for China. The agreement also grants TopoTarget a co-promote option if and only if we do not maintain a minimum number (subject to adjustment for certain events outside of our control) of field personnel (as defined in the agreement) for a certain number of years post-approval of the PTCL indication.

Under the terms of the agreement, all development, including studies, will be conducted under a joint development plan and in accordance with a mutually agreed upon target product profile provided that we have final decision-making authority for all developmental activities in North America and India (and China upon exercise of the option for China) and TopoTarget has final decision-making authority for all developmental activities in all other jurisdictions. We have agreed to assume all responsibility for and future costs of the ongoing registrational PTCL trial. We and TopoTarget will conduct future planned clinical trials pursuant to the joint development plan, of which we will fund 70% of the development costs and TopoTarget will fund 30% of the development costs. We and TopoTarget will each pay 50% of the costs for chemical, pharmaceutical and other process development related to the manufacturing of the product that are incurred with a mutually agreed upon budget in the joint development plan. TopoTarget is responsible for supplying us with both clinical and commercial product.

Pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Spectrum paid TopoTarget an upfront fee of $30 million. In addition, on the successful achievement of certain development, regulatory and sales milestones, none of which have been achieved to date, Spectrum is obligated to issue one million (1,000,000) shares of its common stock (subject to certain resale conditions) and pay TopoTarget up to $313 million. Also, Spectrum will pay TopoTarget royalties in the mid-teen digits based on net sales of the subject product in the defined territory, which specific royalty rates are subject to confidential treatment pursuant to an order by the SEC. None of such royalties have been earned or paid since inception of the agreement.

The agreement will continue until the expiration of the last royalty payment period in the last country in the defined territory with certain provisions surviving, unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms. Spectrum may terminate the agreement at its election upon one hundred eighty (180) days notice to TopoTarget. Generally, Spectrum may also terminate immediately upon a prohibition on the use of the subject product or clinical hold by the FDA. TopoTarget may also terminate immediately in the event of a challenge (without TopoTarget’s consent) by Spectrum of the patents that cover the product. Either party may terminate the agreement upon a bankruptcy by the other party, or in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party.

Co-Development and Commercialization Agreement with Hanmi Pharmaceutical Company, SPI-2012

In late January 2012, we entered into a co-development and commercialization agreement with Hanmi Pharmaceutical Company, (“Hanmi”), for SPI-2012, formerly known as “LAPS-GCSF”, a drug for the treatment of chemotherapy induced neutropenia based on Hanmi’s proprietary LAPSCOVERY™ Technology. In consideration for the rights granted to us under the co-development and commercialization agreement with Hanmi, we paid Hanmi a fee which is included in research and development expense in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements because the technology has not yet achieved regulatory approval. We expect to initiate Phase 2 trials in collaboration with Hanmi in 2013. Under the terms of the agreement, we will share the costs and expenses of the study although we will have primary responsibility for them. If SPI-2012 is ultimately commercialized by us, we will have worldwide rights except for Korea, China and Japan upon payment of fees and milestone payments related to further development, regulatory approvals and sales targets.

Service Agreements

In connection with the research and development of our drug products, we have entered into contracts with numerous third party service providers, such as radio-pharmacies, distributors, clinical trial centers, clinical research organizations, data monitoring centers, and with drug formulation, development and testing laboratories. The financial terms of these agreements are varied and generally obligate us to pay in stages, depending on achievement of certain events specified in the agreements, such as contract execution, reservation of service or production capacity, actual performance of service, or the successful accrual and dosing of patients.

At each period end, we accrue for all costs of goods and services received, with such accruals based on factors such as estimates of work performed, patient enrollment, completion of patient studies and other events. We are in a position to accelerate, slow-down or discontinue any or all of the projects that we are working on at any given point in time. Should we decide to discontinue and/or slow-down the work on any project, the associated costs for those projects would be limited to the extent of the work completed. Generally, we are able to terminate these contracts due to the discontinuance of the related project(s) and thus avoid paying for the services that have not yet been rendered and our future purchase obligations would reduce accordingly.

Supply Agreements

In connection with our acquisition of ZEVALIN, RIT assumed a supply agreement with Biogen Idec Inc., or Biogen, to manufacture ZEVALIN for sale in the U.S. pursuant to which we would purchase from Biogen, and Biogen would provide to us, kits to make ZEVALIN doses for sale to end-users in the U.S. at a “cost plus” manufacturing price. In connection with our acquisition of Captisol-enabled melphalan, we entered into a supply agreement with Ligand pursuant to which, subject to certain exceptions, we agreed to purchase our requirements of Captisol from Ligand.

Employment Agreement

We have entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, which expires January 2, 2014. The employment agreement automatically renews for subsequent one-year calendar terms unless either party gives written notice of such party’s intent not to renew the agreement at least 90 days prior to the commencement of the new term. The employment agreement requires Dr. Shrotriya to devote his full working time and effort to our business and affairs during the term of the agreement. The employment agreement provides for a minimum annual base salary with annual increases, periodic bonuses and option grants as determined by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors.

Litigation

Shareholder Litigation

John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH); Junqian Carroll v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 22, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00498-RBJ-CF); Gary Santi v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 22, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00502-LDG-CWH); William Skene v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed April 10, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 3:2013-cv-00175-RBJ-VPC); and Rubin v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed April 24, 2013 in the United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 3:2013-cv-00212-RCJ-VPC). These putative class actions raise substantially identical claims and allegations against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from the Company’s March 12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press release, the Company’s stock price declined. The complaints further allege that during the putative class period certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock. The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate. The putative class action cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs’ counsel have filed motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s legal counsel. The motions are briefed. Plaintiffs’ counsel represent that an amended complaint will be filed following the Court’s decision on lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs’ legal counsel.

Timothy Fik v. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, et al. (Filed April 11, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00624-JCM-CWH); Christopher J. Watkins v. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, et al. (Filed April 22, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00684-JCM-VCF); and Stefan Muenchhagen v. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, et al. (Filed May 28, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00942-APG-PAL). These derivative complaints are brought by the respective purported shareholders on behalf of nominal plaintiff Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against defendants Krishan K. Arora, Gilles Gagnon, Anton Gueth, Joseph Kenneth Keller, Stuart M Krassner, Luigi Lenaz, Anthony E. Maida, Brett L. Scott and Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya. The Fik and Watkins lawsuits allege six counts against all defendants: breach of fiduciary duty for disseminating false and misleading information; breach of fiduciary duty for failing to properly oversee and manage the company; unjust enrichment; abuse of control; gross mismanagement; and waste of corporate assets. The Fik and Watkins lawsuits also allege a seventh count for breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information against defendants Dr. Raj Shrotriya, Brett Scott, and Anthony Maida. The Muenchhagen lawsuit alleges five counts against all defendants: breach of fiduciary duty for disseminating false and misleading information; breach of fiduciary duty for failing to properly oversee and manage the company; abuse of control; gross mismanagement; and waste of corporate assets. The Muenchhagen lawsuit also alleges two counts against defendants Dr. Raj Shrotriya, Brett Scott, and Anthony Maida for unjust enrichment and for breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. These substantially identical complaints allege that defendants knew or should have known that the Company’s statements about future FUSILEV sales were misleadingly optimistic and that these statements inflated the trading price of Company stock. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press release, the Company’s stock price declined. The complaints seek compensatory damages, corporate governance reforms, restitution and disgorgement of defendants’ alleged profits, and costs and fees. The Fik and Watkins cases have been consolidated and stayed. The parties have submitted a notice to consolidate and stay the Muenchhagen case.

Hardik Kakadia v. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, et al. (Filed April 23, 2013 in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County; Case Number A-13-680643-B); and Joel Besner v. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, et al. (Filed May 31, 2013 in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County; Case Number A-13-682668-C). These derivative complaints are brought by the respective purported shareholders on behalf of nominal plaintiff Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against defendants Krishan K. Arora, Gilles Gagnon, Anton Gueth, Joseph Kenneth Keller, Stuart M Krassner, Luigi Lenaz, Anthony E. Maida, Brett L. Scott and Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya. The Kakadia lawsuit alleges three counts against all defendants: breach of fiduciary duty; waste of corporate assets; and unjust enrichment. The Besner lawsuit alleges five counts against all defendants: breach of fiduciary duty for disseminating false and misleading information; breach of fiduciary duty for failing to properly oversee and manage the company; abuse of control; gross mismanagement; and waste of corporate assets. The Besner lawsuit also alleges two counts against defendants Dr. Raj Shrotriya, Brett Scott, and Anthony Maida for unjust enrichment and for breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. The complaints similarly allege that defendants knew or should have known that the Company’s statements about future FUSILEV sales were misleadingly optimistic and that these statements inflated the trading price of Company stock. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press release, the Company’s stock price declined. The complaints seek compensatory damages, corporate governance reforms, restitution and disgorgement of defendants’ alleged profits, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and costs and fees. The cases have been consolidated and stayed.

SEC Subpoena

On April 1, 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for documents pursuant to a formal order of investigation. The subpoena followed the Company’s March 12, 2013 announcement that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The Company is cooperating with the SEC investigation. The Company cannot predict when the SEC will conclude its investigation or the outcome of the investigation.

We are involved with various legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business. 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. Although the ultimate resolution of these various matters cannot be determined at this time, we do not believe that such matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.