Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies |
6 Months Ended | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Jun. 30, 2016 | |||
| Notes to Financial Statements | |||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] |
Letters of Credit As of June 30, 2016, the Company had $0.5 million in letters of credit outstanding as required by its existing insurance policies and its facility leases. These letters of credit are collateralized by certain investments. Contingency In connection with the acquisition of RedPath on October 31, 2014, the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Interpace Diagnostics, LLC (Interpace), entered into a Contingent Consideration Agreement with RedPath Equityholder Representative, LLC (the Equityholder Representative). Pursuant to the Contingent Consideration Agreement, the Company agreed to issue to the equityholders of RedPath 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 (Common Stock), upon acceptance for publication of a specified article related to PathFinderTG® for the management of Barrett’s esophagus. The pending issuance of Common Stock was recorded as Additional paid-in capital in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. On April 13, 2015, this milestone was reached upon acceptance for publication of new data supporting the use of BarreGen™ for predicting risk of progression from Barrett’s esophagus to esophageal cancer. On June 16, 2015, the 500,000 shares were issued from Treasury stock decreasing the balance in treasury stock by approximately $6.1 million, with a corresponding decrease in Additional paid-in capital of $6.1 million. In March 2016, 500,000 additional shares of Common Stock were issued from Treasury stock, as a result of the acceleration of the Common Stock Milestone, as defined in the Contingent Consideration Agreement, resulting from the change of control in connection with the sale of its CSO business in December 2015, decreasing the balance in treasury stock by approximately $6.8 million, with a corresponding decrease in Additional paid-in capital of $6.8 million. Litigation Due to the nature of the businesses in which the Company is engaged it is subject to certain risks. Such risks include, among others, risk of liability for personal injury or death to persons using products the Company promotes or commercializes. There can be no assurance that substantial claims or liabilities will not arise in the future due to the nature of the Company’s business activities and recent increases in litigation related to healthcare products. As part of the closeout of its CSO operations, the Company seeks to reduce its potential liability under its service agreements through measures such as contractual indemnification provisions with customers (the scope of which may vary from customer to customer, and the performance of which is not secured) and insurance. The Company could, however, also be held liable for errors and omissions of its employees in connection with the services it performs that are outside the scope of any indemnity or insurance policy. The Company could be materially adversely affected if it were required to pay damages or incur defense costs in connection with a claim that is outside the scope of an indemnification agreement; if the indemnity, although applicable, is not performed in accordance with its terms; or if the Company’s liability exceeds the amount of applicable insurance or indemnity. The Company routinely assesses its litigation and threatened litigation as to the probability of ultimately incurring a liability, and records its best estimate of the ultimate loss in situations where the Company assesses the likelihood of loss as probable. The Company accrues for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In addition, in the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, as applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss, indicate that the estimate is immaterial with respect to its financial statements as a whole or, if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made. As of December 31, 2015, the Company's accrual for litigation and threatened litigation was not material to the consolidated financial statements. In connection with the October 31, 2014 acquisition of RedPath, the Company assumed a liability for a January 2013 settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) entered into by the former owners of RedPath with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company is obligated to make payments to the DOJ for the calendar years ended December 31, 2014 through 2017, up to a maximum of $3.0 million. Payments are due March 31st following the calendar year that the revenue milestones are achieved. The Company has been indemnified by the former owners of RedPath for $2.5 million of the obligation and has recorded an indemnification asset of that amount within other non-current assets. During the six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company has $1.8 million recorded as its best estimate of the amount that remains to be paid under the Settlement Agreement based on its estimate of future revenues, of which $0.8 million is included in other accrued expenses and $1.0 million is included in other long-term liabilities .Prolias Technologies, Inc. v. PDI, Inc. On April 8, 2015, Prolias Technologies, Inc., or Prolias, filed a complaint (the Complaint) against the Company with the Superior Court of New Jersey (Morris County) in a matter entitled Prolias Technologies, Inc. v. PDI, Inc. (Docket No. MRS-L-899-15). In the Complaint, Prolias alleges that it and the Company entered into an August 19, 2013 Collaboration Agreement and a First Amendment thereto, collectively the Agreement, whereby Prolias and the Company agreed to work in good faith to commercialize a diagnostic test known as "Thymira." Thymira is a minimally invasive diagnostic test that is being developed to detect thyroid cancer. Prolias alleges in the Complaint that the Company wrongfully terminated the Agreement, breached obligations owed to it under the Agreement and committed torts by (i) failing to effectively and timely validate Thymira, (ii) purchasing a competitor of Prolias and working to commercialize the competitive product at the expense of Thymira, and (iii) interfering with a license agreement that Prolias had with Cornell University related to a license for Thymira. Prolias asserts claims against the Company for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contract and breach of fiduciary duty and seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit. On June 3, 2015, the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim in response to the Complaint. In the Answer, the Company denied liability for the claims being asserted in the Complaint. In the Counterclaim, the Company asserted claims against Prolias for breaches of the Agreement and for a declaratory judgment. The Company seeks damages from Prolias in excess of $500,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees and costs, together with a declaration compelling Prolias to execute and deliver to the Company a promissory note in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) to evidence Prolias’ obligation to repay the Company for amounts that were advanced. After the Answer and Counterclaim were filed, the Company and Prolias exchanged paper discovery. In early December 2015, Prolias replaced its counsel with new counsel. Thereafter, on December 18, 2015, Prolias filed an Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that sought to (a) enjoin the Company from selling the assets that comprise its CSO business to Publicist Healthcare Communications Group and (b) disqualify the Company's counsel from representing it in the litigation. On December 21, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Prolias's application to temporarily enjoin the sale of the CSO business. Following the hearing the Court denied Prolias's application for a TRO and set a hearing date on the motions to disqualify counsel and to obtain an injunction. On February 4, 2016, the Court heard argument on Prolias's motions to disqualify the Company’s counsel and to obtain an injunction with respect to the CSO sale. Following the hearing, the Court entered orders denying the motion to disqualify and denying the motion for an injunction. On February 24, 2016, Prolias filed a motion before the New Jersey Appellate Division for leave to appeal on an interlocutory basis the order denying the motion to disqualify. The Company filed its opposition to the motion on March 7, 2016. While the motion for leave to appeal was pending, on March 29, 2016, counsel for Prolias filed for permission to withdraw as counsel, citing nonpayment of its bills. On April 7, 2016, the Company conditionally opposed the motion to withdraw pending prompt appointment of new counsel for Prolias. On April 19, 2016, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. On April 27, 2016, Prolias’ counsel renewed its motion to withdraw. On May 12, 2016, while the motion to withdraw was pending, the Court entered an Order granting the motion for leave to appeal and then proceeded to affirm the Court’s order denying the motion to disqualify. On May 27, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting Prolias’s counsel leave to withdraw as counsel for Prolias. In this same Order, the Court required Prolias to retain new counsel by June 27, 2016, and in the absence of the retention of new counsel, the Order enabled the Company to file an appropriate motion to dismiss Prolias’s Complaint. On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Prolias’s complaint on the basis that Prolias had failed to retain new counsel to represent it. Prolias filed no opposition to the motion. The parties are now waiting on the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. The Company denies that it is liable to Prolias for any of the claims asserted in the Complaint and it intends to (a) vigorously defend itself against those claims and (b) pursue all claims asserted in the Counterclaim. Swann v. Akorn, Inc., and Interpace Diagnostics Group, Inc. On May 27, 2016, Michael J. Swann, one of our former employees, filed a complaint against us in the Court of Common Pleas of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in South Carolina in a matter entitled Michael J. Swann v. Akorn, Inc., and Interpace Diagnostic Group Inc. (Civil Action No. 2016-CP-40-03362). In the complaint, Mr. Swann alleges, among other things, that he was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated as a member of a sales force marketing pharmaceutical products of Akorn, Inc., because of an illness suffered by Mr. Swann. Mr. Swann alleges that he was discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act/Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act and the Family Medical Leave Act and seeks damages for back pay, reinstatement, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount not less than $300,000, attorney’s fees and costs. We deny that we are liable to Mr. Swann for any of the claims asserted and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against those claims. Severance In 2015, in connection with the sale of the sale of the majority of the CSO business and the implementation of a broad-based program to maximize efficiencies and cut costs, the Company reduced headcount and incurred severance obligations to terminated employees that amounted to approximately $3.7 million. During the first quarter ended March 31, 2016 the Company recorded additional severance obligations as it continued to right-size the organization and wind down its CSO business. The Company recorded obligations of $1.1 million, $0.5 million of which was recorded in continuing operations. The current severance liability as of June 30, 2016 is $3.3 million, of which $2.3 million resides in continuing operations and $1.0 million is in discontinued operations. |