Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

On November 12, 2021, Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and certain members of senior management, captioned Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al., No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (the “Sinnathurai Action”). On January 26, 2022, the court entered an order designating David Truong, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and Jeffrey Gabbert as co-lead plaintiffs in the Sinnathurai Action. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 11, 2022, alleging that the defendants made certain purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s ability to manufacture NVX-CoV2373 on a commercial scale and to secure the vaccine’s regulatory approval. The amended complaint defines the purported class as those stockholders who purchased the Company’s securities between February 24, 2021 and October 19, 2021. On April 25, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On June 9, 2022, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and on July 11, 2022, the Company filed a reply brief. The matter is now fully briefed. The Court has not indicated whether it intends to schedule any hearing on the motion before issuing a ruling.

After the Sinnathurai Action was filed, six derivative lawsuits were filed: (i) Robert E. Meyer v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:21-cv-02996-TDC (the “Meyer Action”), (ii) Shui Shing Yung v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:21-cv-03248-TDC (the “Yung Action”), (iii) William Kirst, et al. v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:22-cv-00024-TDC (the “Kirst Action”), (iv) Amy Snyder v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:22-cv-01415-TDC (the “Snyder Action”), (v) Charles R. Blackburn, et al. v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 1:22-cv-01417-TDC (the “Blackburn Action”), and (vi) Diego J. Mesa v. Stanley C. Erck, et al. (the “Mesa Action”). The Meyer, Yung, Snyder, and Blackburn Actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Kirst Action was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, and shortly thereafter removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by the defendants. The Mesa Action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The derivative lawsuits name members of the board of directors and certain members of senior management as defendants. The Company is deemed a nominal defendant. The plaintiffs assert derivative claims arising out of substantially the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Sinnathurai Action. Collectively, the derivative complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, insider selling, unjust enrichment, violation of federal securities law, abuse of control, waste, and mismanagement. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.

On July 21, 2022, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order remanding the Kirst Action to state court. On February 4, 2022, the Court entered an order consolidating the Meyer and Yung Actions (the “First Consolidated Derivative Action”). The plaintiffs in the First Consolidated Derivative Action filed their consolidated derivative complaint on April 25, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court entered an order in the First Consolidated Derivative Action granting the parties’ request to stay all proceedings and deadlines pending the earlier of dismissal or the filing of an answer in the Sinnathurai Action. On June 10, 2022, the Snyder and Blackburn Actions were filed. On October 5, 2022, the court entered an order granting a request by the plaintiffs in the First Consolidated Derivative Action and the Snyder and Blackburn Actions to consolidate all three actions and appoint co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead and liaison counsel (the “Second Consolidated Derivative Action”). The co-lead plaintiffs in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action will designate an operative complaint or file a consolidated amended complaint by November 21, 2022. On August 30, 2022, the Mesa Action was filed. On October 3, 2022, the court entered an order granting the parties’ request to stay all proceedings and deadlines in the Mesa Action pending the earlier of dismissal of the Sinnathurai Action or the filing of an answer to the operative complaint in the Sinnathurai Action. The financial impact of the claims is not estimable.

On February 26, 2021, a Novavax stockholder named Thomas Golubinski filed a derivative complaint against members of the Novavax board of directors and members of senior management in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”), captioned Thomas Golubinski v. Richard H. Douglas, et al., No. 2021-0172-JRS. The Company is deemed a nominal defendant. Golubinski challenged equity awards made in April 2020 and in June 2020 on the ground that they were “spring-loaded,” that is, made at a time when such board members or members of senior management allegedly possessed undisclosed positive material information concerning the Company. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought an award of damages to the Company, an order rescinding both awards or requiring disgorgement, and an award of attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the litigation. On May 10, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On June 17, 2021, the Company’s stockholders voted FOR ratification of the April 2020 awards and ratification of the June 2020 awards. Details of the ratification proposals are set forth in the Company’s Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on May 3, 2021. The results of the vote were disclosed in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 24, 2021. Thereafter, the plaintiff stipulated that, as a result of the outcome of the June 17, 2021 vote, the plaintiff no longer intends to pursue the lawsuit or any claim arising from the April 2020 and June 2020 awards. On August 23, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, to which the defendants filed an opposition. The motion was argued before the Court on October 18, 2022. The same day, the Court issued a bench ruling denying the plaintiff’s fee application in its entirety and entered an order to that effect. Under a prior Court order, the case was automatically dismissed with prejudice upon denial of the plaintiff’s fee application.

On March 29, 2022, Par Sterile Products, LLC (“Par”) submitted a demand for arbitration against the Company with the American Arbitration Association, alleging that the Company breached certain provisions of the Manufacturing and Services Agreement (“MSA”) that the Company entered into with Par in September 2020 to provide fill-finish manufacturing services for NVX-CoV2373. The matter is at a preliminary stage and therefore the potential loss is not reasonably estimable. The parties are engaged in discovery and arbitration is scheduled for July 2023. While the Company maintains that no breach of the MSA has occurred and intends to vigorously defend the matter, if the final resolution of the matter is adverse to the Company, it could have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.