Commitments and contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	11. Commitments and contingencies *Supply Commitments —* In November 2007, the Company entered into a long-term supply agreement (the “Supply Agreement”) with N.V. Organon (“Organon”), now a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., pursuant to which Organon manufactured and supplied specified quantities of recombinant human insulin to the Company. In June 2011, the Company entered into a letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with Organon to settle a dispute that arose between the Company and Organon in connection with the termination by the Company of the Supply Agreement. Under the terms of the Letter Agreement, the Company will pay Organon an aggregate of $16.0 million in two installments, each of which will be paid after the Company receives certain quantities of recombinant human insulin manufactured and supplied by Organon. The Letter Agreement is in full and final settlement of, and the Company and Organon agreed to release each other from, any and all actions and claims that the Company and Organon had or may have against each other in connection with the dispute regarding the Supply Agreement and related maters. The Company has concluded that the Letter Agreement represents a multiple element arrangement consisting of two elements representing the purchase of insulin and a contract cancellation fee. The Company has allocated the $16 million settlement first to the fair value of the insulin with the residual being allocated to the contract cancellation fee. During the three months ended June 30, 2011, the Company received the first of two shipments of recombinant human insulin and paid the first installment of $8.0 million. The Company expensed $4.3 million for insulin received and recorded $3.7 million for a contract cancellation fee. As of June 30, 2011, the Company recorded a loss contingency of $3.9 million in connection with the Letter Agreement representing the portion of the second $8.0 million payment related to the contract cancellation fee, which was paid in July 2011. *Guarantees and Indemnifications —* In the ordinary course of its business, the Company makes certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its Bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has not recorded any liability for these indemnities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. However, the Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such losses have been recorded to date. *Litigation —* The Company is involved in various legal proceedings and other matters. In accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies, previously the FASB Statement No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, the Company would record a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. On November 23, 2010, John Arditi, former Senior Director — GCP — Regulatory Affairs of the Company, filed a Demand for Arbitration against the Company and three of its employees — the Chief Scientific Officer, the Vice President — World Wide Regulatory Affairs, and the Chief Financial Officer — claiming that the Company terminated his employment in retaliation for his purported reporting of alleged unlawful practices in connection with the Company’s clinical trials. Mr. Arditi has asserted claims for violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, wrongful discharge, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Arditi is seeking, among other relief, compensatory and punitive damages and counsel fees, costs and interest. Before Mr. Arditi filed his arbitration demand, the Company completed an internal investigation and retained an independent outside firm to conduct an independent investigation of Mr. Arditi’s claims. Neither investigation found any basis for his claims. The Company believes the allegations made by Mr. Arditi are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. Following the receipt of the Complete Response letter from the FDA regarding the NDA for AFREZZA in January 2011 and the subsequent decline of the price of the Company’s common stock, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company’s common stock. The complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and have been brought as purported shareholder class actions. In general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The complaints have been transferred to a single court and consolidated for all purposes. The court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 27, 2011. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims advanced. Starting in February 2011, shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles and in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company’s directors and certain of its officers. The complaints in the shareholder derivative actions allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. In general, the complaints allege that the Company’s directors and certain of its officers caused or allowed for the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures. The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles has consolidated the actions pending before it. Likewise, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has consolidated the actions pending before it. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and ordered the federal lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by mid-August 2011. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims advanced.

11. Commitments and contingencies

Supply Commitments — In November 2007, the Company entered into a long-term supply agreement (the “Supply Agreement”) with N.V. Organon (“Organon”), now a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., pursuant to which Organon manufactured and supplied specified quantities of recombinant human insulin to the Company. In June 2011, the Company entered into a letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with Organon to settle a dispute that arose between the Company and Organon in connection with the termination by the Company of the Supply Agreement. Under the terms of the Letter Agreement, the Company will pay Organon an aggregate of $16.0 million in two installments, each of which will be paid after the Company receives certain quantities of recombinant human insulin manufactured and supplied by Organon. The Letter Agreement is in full and final settlement of, and the Company and Organon agreed to release each other from, any and all actions and claims that the Company and Organon had or may have against each other in connection with the dispute regarding the Supply Agreement and related maters. The Company has concluded that the Letter Agreement represents a multiple element arrangement consisting of two elements representing the purchase of insulin and a contract cancellation fee. The Company has allocated the $16 million settlement first to the fair value of the insulin with the residual being allocated to the contract cancellation fee. During the three months ended June 30, 2011, the Company received the first of two shipments of recombinant human insulin and paid the first installment of $8.0 million. The Company expensed $4.3 million for insulin received and recorded $3.7 million for a contract cancellation fee. As of June 30, 2011, the Company recorded a loss contingency of $3.9 million in connection with the Letter Agreement representing the portion of the second $8.0 million payment related to the contract cancellation fee, which was paid in July 2011.

Guarantees and Indemnifications — In the ordinary course of its business, the Company makes certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its Bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has not recorded any liability for these indemnities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. However, the Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such losses have been recorded to date.

Litigation — The Company is involved in various legal proceedings and other matters. In accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies, previously the FASB Statement No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, the Company would record a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

On November 23, 2010, John Arditi, former Senior Director — GCP — Regulatory Affairs of the Company, filed a Demand for Arbitration against the Company and three of its employees — the Chief Scientific Officer, the Vice President — World Wide Regulatory Affairs, and the Chief Financial Officer — claiming that the Company terminated his employment in retaliation for his purported reporting of alleged unlawful practices in connection with the Company’s clinical trials. Mr. Arditi has asserted claims for violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, wrongful discharge, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Arditi is seeking, among other relief, compensatory and punitive damages and counsel fees, costs and interest. Before Mr. Arditi filed his arbitration demand, the Company completed an internal investigation and retained an independent outside firm to conduct an independent investigation of Mr. Arditi’s claims. Neither investigation found any basis for his claims. The Company believes the allegations made by Mr. Arditi are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Following the receipt of the Complete Response letter from the FDA regarding the NDA for AFREZZA in January 2011 and the subsequent decline of the price of the Company’s common stock, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company’s common stock. The complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and have been brought as purported shareholder class actions. In general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The complaints have been transferred to a single court and consolidated for all purposes. The court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 27, 2011. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims advanced.

Starting in February 2011, shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles and in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company’s directors and certain of its officers. The complaints in the shareholder derivative actions allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. In general, the complaints allege that the Company’s directors and certain of its officers caused or allowed for the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures. The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles has consolidated the actions pending before it. Likewise, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has consolidated the actions pending before it. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and ordered the federal lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by mid-August 2011. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims advanced.