Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9: Commitments and Contingencies The Company has a production threshold commitment to a manufacturer of our SYMJEPI products where the Company would be required to pay for maintenance fees if it does not meet certain periodic purchase order minimums. Any such maintenance fees would be prorated as a percentage of the required minimum production threshold. Maintenance fees for the three months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020 were approximately $0 and $420,000, respectively. Maintenance fees for the six months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020 were approximately $0 and $840,000, respectively. Legal Proceedings The Company may from time to time become party to actions, claims, suits, investigations or proceedings arising from the ordinary course of our business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims, claims relating to our compounded pharmacy business, and other matters. We may also become party to litigation in federal and state courts relating to opioid drugs. Any litigation could divert management time and attention, could involve significant amounts of legal fees and other fees and expenses, or could result in an adverse outcome having a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Actions, claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty. Except as described below, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings that we believe are, individually or in the aggregate, material to our business, results of operations or financial condition. However, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of associated cost and diversion of management time. Nephron On September 21, 2018, Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Nephron S.C., Inc., and Nephron Sterile Compounding Center LLC (collectively, “Nephron”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, alleging claims against our wholly owned subsidiary USC —and a USC employee who previously was an employee of Nephron. The original complaint asserted thirteen causes of action against the employee and USC alleging generally misappropriation of Nephron’s trade secrets. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include Adamis as a defendant. After several motions to dismiss, only four claims remained from the third amended complaint: (1) misappropriation under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DFSA”), (2) breach of contract (against the employee only), (3) misappropriation under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“FUTSA”), and (4) tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. The gravamen of these claims was that the employee improperly misappropriated trade secret information from the employee’s former employer, Nephron, prior to starting employment at USC and that USC improperly recruited the employee for employment at USC. The third amended complaint alleged that Adamis and USC aided in this misappropriation by “using and/or disclosing and/or retaining the same in an effort to unfairly compete against Nephron.” The third amended complaint sought actual, compensatory, consequential, special, and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and other relief. On May 6, 2020, Adamis and USC moved for summary judgment to dismiss the three claims that remained pending against them. In October 2020, the magistrate judge presiding over the motion delivered a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court enter an order granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part. The court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate and granted in part and denied in part the motion of Adamis and USC for summary judgment. The court denied the motion for summary judgment by Adamis and USC with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims under the DFSA and FUTSA, concluding that there were triable issues of material fact that precluded the entry of summary judgment, and granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Adamis and USC with respect to the claim for tortious interference. In March 2021, the court granted a motion by Nephron to hold Adamis and USC in civil contempt for violation of a previous consent preliminary injunction related to the hiring by USC of an employee, and ordered that Adamis and USC compensate Nephron for certain fees and expenses in the litigation relating to the matter as well as pay a fine, in an amount to be determined. A hearing on the amount of such sanctions was held on April 6, 2021, but decisions regarding sanctions were deferred until after trial. After the hearing, the court ruled on various pre-trial motions relating to the conduct of the trial. The case was set for trial on April 19, 2021. As previously disclosed in the 2020 Form 10-K, while we continued to believe that the claims and damages sought by the plaintiff were without merit, in light of several factors including the recent hearing and outcome of decisions concerning pre-trial motions, the legal expenses of ongoing litigation and trial, the uncertainties of litigation and jury trials, and the possibility of punitive damages and other adverse awards or sanctions, on April 9, 2021, Adamis, USC and Nephron agreed to terms of settlement of the Florida litigation as well as a related case filed by Nephron against USC, Adamis and a second USC employee in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging misappropriation of trade secrets from Nephron. Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into by Adamis, the Nephron entities and certain other individuals (the “individual parties”), and related documents entered into by the parties thereto, on May 3, 2021, the Company paid Nephron an amount equal to $7,900,000; the Company and USC, as well as the individual parties, agreed to a permanent injunction reflecting certain terms of the settlement and pursuant to which they agreed, among other things, not to retain, access, communication, use or disclose any proprietary or confidential information of Nephron and to destroy all such information in their possession or control, subject to limited exceptions; and Nephron agreed to dismissal of or withdrawal from the lawsuits and related legal proceedings. A contingent loss liability of $7,900,000 was included in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2020. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, each of the parties agreed to release each other from all existing claims that any of them may have against any of the other parties that arise from or relate to the claims and liabilities asserted in the various lawsuits and agreed not to sue any of the parties on the basis of any released claim. Investigation On May 11, 2021, the company and USC each received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“USAO”). The USAO issued the subpoenas in connection with a criminal investigation and requested a broad range of documents and materials relating to, among other matters, certain veterinary products sold by USC, certain practices, agreements, and arrangements relating to products sold by USC, including veterinary products, and certain regulatory and other matters relating to the company and USC. On May 11, 2021, the Audit Committee of the Board engaged outside counsel to conduct an independent internal investigation to review the matters brought forth in the subpoenas and certain other matters. The investigation involved, among other matters, interviews with employees and collection and review of a large number of documents. The company has taken a number of actions in response to the internal investigation, including personnel actions relating to certain USC veterinary sales employees. In addition, following the commencement of the investigation, as disclosed elsewhere in this Report the company has sold assets relating to its compounding pharmacy business, ceased selling human and veterinary compounded pharmaceutical products, is engaged in a process of winding down USC’s business, and the employment of substantially all USC employees has ended or will end in connection with the winding down of that business. As a result, the company will no longer be engaged in the sale of human or veterinary compounded pharmaceutical products. The company is also considering a number of additional actions in response to the internal investigation. As of the date of this Report, we believe that the investigation initially commenced by the Audit Committee is substantially complete. However, additional issues or facts could arise or be determined, which may expand the scope, duration, or outcome of the Audit Committee’s investigation. In addition to the subpoenas from the USAO, the company has also received requests from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for the voluntary production of documents and information relating to the subject matter of the USAO’s subpoenas and certain other matters. The company has produced documents and will continue to produce and provide documents in response to the subpoenas and requests. The company intends to cooperate with the USAO and the SEC. At this time, the company is unable to predict the duration, scope, or outcome of the investigations by the USAO, SEC, or other agencies, or determine what, if any, proceedings the USAO, SEC, or other federal or state authorities may initiate, what, if any, remedies or remedial measures the USAO, SEC, or other federal or state authorities may seek, or what, if any, impact the foregoing matters may have on the company’s business, previously reported financial results, financial results included in this Report, or future financial results.. We could receive additional requests from the USAO, SEC, or other authorities, which may require further investigation. There can be no assurance that any discussions with the SEC or USAO to resolve these matters will be successful. The foregoing matters may divert management’s attention, cause the company to suffer reputational harm, require the company to devote significant financial resources, subject the company and its officers and directors to civil or criminal proceedings, and depending on the resolution of the matters or any proceedings, result in fines, penalties or equitable remedies, and affect the company’s business, previously reported financial results, financial results included in this Report, or future financial results. The occurrence of any of these events, or any determination that our activities were not in compliance with existing laws or regulations, could have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations. Jerald Hammann On June 8, 2021, Jerald Hammann filed a complaint against the Company and each of its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jerald Hammann v. Adamis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al., C.A. No. 2021-0506-PAF (the “Complaint”), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants (i) violated Rule 14a-5(f) and 14a-9(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in connection with the Company’s 2021 annual meeting of stockholders—which was subsequently held on July 16, 2021 (the “2021 annual meeting”)—and disseminated false and misleading information in the Company’s proxy materials relating to the 2021 annual meeting, (ii) violated certain provisions of the Company’s bylaws relating to the 2021 annual meeting, (iii) violated section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) in connection with a request for inspection of books and records submitted by the plaintiff, and (iv) breached their fiduciary duties of disclosure and loyalty, including relating to establishing and disclosing the date of the Company’s 2021 annual meeting and to the Company’s determination that a solicitation notice delivered to the Company by plaintiff was not timely and was otherwise deficient. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiff intended to initiate a proxy contest against the Company, that defendants’ conduct made it difficult or impossible for plaintiff to initiate a proxy context, and that the Company’s definitive proxy statement included false and misleading disclosures and omissions of material information. The Complaint sought injunctive relief (i) to prevent the Board, the Company, and their employees and agents from soliciting any stockholders pursuant to the Company’s proxy statement and (ii) to prevent the defendants from interfering in the effectiveness of stockholder voting for the 2021 annual meeting. The Complaint also seeks declaratory relief (i) finding that plaintiff’s solicitation notice was timely and properly submitted; (ii) directing the defendants to comply with Rules 14a-5(f) and 14a-9(a) of the Exchange Act; (iii) directing the Company to produce the materials set forth in the plaintiff’s books and records request; (iv) finding that the director defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to stockholders; and (v) finding that the director defendants engaged in self-dealing. The Complaint seeks an award of fees, costs, and expenses in this action, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On June 10, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and for expedited proceedings, seeking an order enjoining the Company from printing or disseminating its proxy statement relating to the 2021 annual meeting or from convening the 2021 annual meeting on July 16, 2021. Following a hearing, on June 17, 2021, the Court determined that: (i) it did not have jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff’s claims relating to alleged violations of the Exchange Act; (ii) plaintiff’s claims regarding the books and records request and alleged violations of section 220 of the DGCL should be pursued in a separate proceeding, and the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to expedite the books and records claims; (iii) certain of the plaintiff’s claims alleging breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure against the individual defendants, including claims based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the Company’s proxy statement, were not colorable; and (iv) plaintiff’s claim alleging that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duty by taking action purportedly intended to prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a proxy contest survived a low threshold of colorability, but the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court granted in part the motion to expedite the proceedings. The case is proceeding and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. The Company believes the claims in plaintiff’s Complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously dispute them. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with legal matters when the Company determines it is probable that a loss has been or will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Where a material loss contingency is reasonably possible and the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss can be reasonably estimated, U.S. GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. The company has not accrued any amount in respect of the matters described under the headings “Investigation” or “Jerald Hammann,” since even if it is probable that such matters may result in a material loss contingency, we cannot estimate the probable loss or the range of probable losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) with respect to the matters described under the heading “Investigation,” we are unable to predict whether any proceedings will be initiated by the USAO, SEC or other authorities arising from such matters, what, if any, relief, remedies or remedial measures the USAO, SEC, or other authorities may seek if proceedings are commenced, and the duration, scope, or outcome of any such proceedings, if they are commenced, (ii) litigation and other proceedings are inherently uncertain and unpredictable, and (iii) with respect to the matters described under the heading “Jerald Hammann,” the complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Because legal proceedings and investigations are uncertain and unpredictable and unfavorable results could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires significant judgments about future events, including determining both the probability and reasonably estimated amount of a possible loss or range of loss. The amount of any ultimate loss may differ from any accruals or estimates that the Company may make.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 9: Commitments and Contingencies

The Company has a production threshold commitment to a manufacturer of our SYMJEPI products where the Company would be required to pay for maintenance fees if it does not meet certain periodic purchase order minimums. Any such maintenance fees would be prorated as a percentage of the required minimum production threshold. Maintenance fees for the three months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020 were approximately $0 and $420,000, respectively. Maintenance fees for the six months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020 were approximately $0 and $840,000, respectively.

Legal Proceedings

The Company may from time to time become party to actions, claims, suits, investigations or proceedings arising from the ordinary course of our business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims, claims relating to our compounded pharmacy business, and other matters. We may also become party to litigation in federal and state courts relating to opioid drugs. Any litigation could divert management time and attention, could involve significant amounts of legal fees and other fees and expenses, or could result in an adverse outcome having a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Actions, claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty. Except as described below, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings that we believe are, individually or in the aggregate, material to our business, results of operations or financial condition. However, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of associated cost and diversion of management time.

Nephron

On September 21, 2018, Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Nephron S.C., Inc., and Nephron Sterile Compounding Center LLC (collectively, “Nephron”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, alleging claims against our wholly owned subsidiary USC —and a USC employee who previously was an employee of Nephron. The original complaint asserted thirteen causes of action against the employee and USC alleging generally misappropriation of Nephron’s trade secrets. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include Adamis as a defendant. After several motions to dismiss, only four claims remained from the third amended complaint: (1) misappropriation under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DFSA”), (2) breach of contract (against the employee only), (3) misappropriation under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“FUTSA”), and (4) tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. The gravamen of these claims was that the employee improperly misappropriated trade secret information from the employee’s former employer, Nephron, prior to starting employment at USC and that USC improperly recruited the employee for employment at USC. The third amended complaint alleged that Adamis and USC aided in this misappropriation by “using and/or disclosing and/or retaining the same in an effort to unfairly compete against Nephron.” The third amended complaint sought actual, compensatory, consequential, special, and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and other relief.

On May 6, 2020, Adamis and USC moved for summary judgment to dismiss the three claims that remained pending against them. In October 2020, the magistrate judge presiding over the motion delivered a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court enter an order granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part. The court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate and granted in part and denied in part the motion of Adamis and USC for summary judgment. The court denied the motion for summary judgment by Adamis and USC with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims under the DFSA and FUTSA, concluding that there were triable issues of material fact that precluded the entry of summary judgment, and granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Adamis and USC with respect to the claim for tortious interference. In March 2021, the court granted a motion by Nephron to hold Adamis and USC in civil contempt for violation of a previous consent preliminary injunction related to the hiring by USC of an employee, and ordered that Adamis and USC compensate Nephron for certain fees and expenses in the litigation relating to the matter as well as pay a fine, in an amount to be determined. A hearing on the amount of such sanctions was held on April 6, 2021, but decisions regarding sanctions were deferred until after trial. After the hearing, the court ruled on various pre-trial motions relating to the conduct of the trial. The case was set for trial on April 19, 2021.

As previously disclosed in the 2020 Form 10-K, while we continued to believe that the claims and damages sought by the plaintiff were without merit, in light of several factors including the recent hearing and outcome of decisions concerning pre-trial motions, the legal expenses of ongoing litigation and trial, the uncertainties of litigation and jury trials, and the possibility of punitive damages and other adverse awards or sanctions, on April 9, 2021, Adamis, USC and Nephron agreed to terms of settlement of the Florida litigation as well as a related case filed by Nephron against USC, Adamis and a second USC employee in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging misappropriation of trade secrets from Nephron. Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into by Adamis, the Nephron entities and certain other individuals (the “individual parties”), and related documents entered into by the parties thereto, on May 3, 2021, the Company paid Nephron an amount equal to $7,900,000; the Company and USC, as well as the individual parties, agreed to a permanent injunction reflecting certain terms of the settlement and pursuant to which they agreed, among other things, not to retain, access, communication, use or disclose any proprietary or confidential information of Nephron and to destroy all such information in their possession or control, subject to limited exceptions; and Nephron agreed to dismissal of or withdrawal from the lawsuits and related legal proceedings. A contingent loss liability of $7,900,000 was included in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2020. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, each of the parties agreed to release each other from all existing claims that any of them may have against any of the other parties that arise from or relate to the claims and liabilities asserted in the various lawsuits and agreed not to sue any of the parties on the basis of any released claim.

Investigation

On May 11, 2021, the company and USC each received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“USAO”). The USAO issued the subpoenas in connection with a criminal investigation and requested a broad range of documents and materials relating to, among other matters, certain veterinary products sold by USC, certain practices, agreements, and arrangements relating to products sold by USC, including veterinary products, and certain regulatory and other matters relating to the company and USC.

On May 11, 2021, the Audit Committee of the Board engaged outside counsel to conduct an independent internal investigation to review the matters brought forth in the subpoenas and certain other matters. The investigation involved, among other matters, interviews with employees and collection and review of a large number of documents. The company has taken a number of actions in response to the internal investigation, including personnel actions relating to certain USC veterinary sales employees. In addition, following the commencement of the investigation, as disclosed elsewhere in this Report the company has sold assets relating to its compounding pharmacy business, ceased selling human and veterinary compounded pharmaceutical products, is engaged in a process of winding down USC’s business, and the employment of substantially all USC employees has ended or will end in connection with the winding down of that business. As a result, the company will no longer be engaged in the sale of human or veterinary compounded pharmaceutical products. The company is also considering a number of additional actions in response to the internal investigation. As of the date of this Report, we believe that the investigation initially commenced by the Audit Committee is substantially complete. However, additional issues or facts could arise or be determined, which may expand the scope, duration, or outcome of the Audit Committee’s investigation. In addition to the subpoenas from the USAO, the company has also received requests from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for the voluntary production of documents and information relating to the subject matter of the USAO’s subpoenas and certain other matters. The company has produced documents and will continue to produce and provide documents in response to the subpoenas and requests. The company intends to cooperate with the USAO and the SEC. At this time, the company is unable to predict the duration, scope, or outcome of the investigations by the USAO, SEC, or other agencies, or determine what, if any, proceedings the USAO, SEC, or other federal or state authorities may initiate, what, if any, remedies or remedial measures the USAO, SEC, or other federal or state authorities may seek, or what, if any, impact the foregoing matters may have on the company’s business, previously reported financial results, financial results included in this Report, or future financial results.. We could receive additional requests from the USAO, SEC, or other authorities, which may require further investigation. There can be no assurance that any discussions with the SEC or USAO to resolve these matters will be successful.

The foregoing matters may divert management’s attention, cause the company to suffer reputational harm, require the company to devote significant financial resources, subject the company and its officers and directors to civil or criminal proceedings, and depending on the resolution of the matters or any proceedings, result in fines, penalties or equitable remedies, and affect the company’s business, previously reported financial results, financial results included in this Report, or future financial results. The occurrence of any of these events, or any determination that our activities were not in compliance with existing laws or regulations, could have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Jerald Hammann

On June 8, 2021, Jerald Hammann filed a complaint against the Company and each of its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jerald Hammann v. Adamis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al., C.A. No. 2021-0506-PAF (the “Complaint”), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants (i) violated Rule 14a-5(f) and 14a-9(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in connection with the Company’s 2021 annual meeting of stockholders—which was subsequently held on July 16, 2021 (the “2021 annual meeting”)—and disseminated false and misleading information in the Company’s proxy materials relating to the 2021 annual meeting, (ii) violated certain provisions of the Company’s bylaws relating to the 2021 annual meeting, (iii) violated section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) in connection with a request for inspection of books and records submitted by the plaintiff, and (iv) breached their fiduciary duties of disclosure and loyalty, including relating to establishing and disclosing the date of the Company’s 2021 annual meeting and to the Company’s determination that a solicitation notice delivered to the Company by plaintiff was not timely and was otherwise deficient. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiff intended to initiate a proxy contest against the Company, that defendants’ conduct made it difficult or impossible for plaintiff to initiate a proxy context, and that the Company’s definitive proxy statement included false and misleading disclosures and omissions of material information. The Complaint sought injunctive relief (i) to prevent the Board, the Company, and their employees and agents from soliciting any stockholders pursuant to the Company’s proxy statement and (ii) to prevent the defendants from interfering in the effectiveness of stockholder voting for the 2021 annual meeting. The Complaint also seeks declaratory relief (i) finding that plaintiff’s solicitation notice was timely and properly submitted; (ii) directing the defendants to comply with Rules 14a-5(f) and 14a-9(a) of the Exchange Act; (iii) directing the Company to produce the materials set forth in the plaintiff’s books and records request; (iv) finding that the director defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to stockholders; and (v) finding that the director defendants engaged in self-dealing. The Complaint seeks an award of fees, costs, and expenses in this action, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

On June 10, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and for expedited proceedings, seeking an order enjoining the Company from printing or disseminating its proxy statement relating to the 2021 annual meeting or from convening the 2021 annual meeting on July 16, 2021. Following a hearing, on June 17, 2021, the Court determined that: (i) it did not have jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff’s claims relating to alleged violations of the Exchange Act; (ii) plaintiff’s claims regarding the books and records request and alleged violations of section 220 of the DGCL should be pursued in a separate proceeding, and the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to expedite the books and records claims; (iii) certain of the plaintiff’s claims alleging breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure against the individual defendants, including claims based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the Company’s proxy statement, were not colorable; and (iv) plaintiff’s claim alleging that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duty by taking action purportedly intended to prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a proxy contest survived a low threshold of colorability, but the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court granted in part the motion to expedite the proceedings.

The case is proceeding and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. The Company believes the claims in plaintiff’s Complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously dispute them.

The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with legal matters when the Company determines it is probable that a loss has been or will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Where a material loss contingency is reasonably possible and the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss can be reasonably estimated, U.S. GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. The company has not accrued any amount in respect of the matters described under the headings “Investigation” or “Jerald Hammann,” since even if it is probable that such matters may result in a material loss contingency, we cannot estimate the probable loss or the range of probable losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) with respect to the matters described under the heading “Investigation,” we are unable to predict whether any proceedings will be initiated by the USAO, SEC or other authorities arising from such matters, what, if any, relief, remedies or remedial measures the USAO, SEC, or other authorities may seek if proceedings are commenced, and the duration, scope, or outcome of any such proceedings, if they are commenced, (ii) litigation and other proceedings are inherently uncertain and unpredictable, and (iii) with respect to the matters described under the heading “Jerald Hammann,” the complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Because legal proceedings and investigations are uncertain and unpredictable and unfavorable results could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires significant judgments about future events, including determining both the probability and reasonably estimated amount of a possible loss or range of loss. The amount of any ultimate loss may differ from any accruals or estimates that the Company may make.