XML 34 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.23.3
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Matters
Stockholder Litigation
On November 12, 2021, Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Maryland Court”) 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 Maryland 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 prototype vaccine on a commercial scale and to secure the prototype 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, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On December 12, 2022, the Maryland Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Maryland Court dismissed all claims against two individual defendants and claims based on certain public statements challenged in the consolidated amended complaint. The Maryland Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants, and directed the Company and other remaining defendants to answer within fourteen days. On December 27, 2022, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses. On March 16, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and to appoint class representatives and counsel. The Company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion on September 22, 2023.
After the Sinnathurai Action was filed, eight 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. C-15-CV-21-000618 (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”), (vi) Diego J. Mesa v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 2022-0770-NAC (the “Mesa Action”), (vii) Sean Acosta v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 2022-1133-NAC (the “Acosta Action”), and (viii) Jared Needelman v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. C-15-CV-23-001550 (the “Needelman Action”). The Meyer, Yung, Snyder, and Blackburn Actions were filed in the Maryland Court. The Kirst Action was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, and shortly thereafter removed to the Maryland Court by the defendants. The Needleman Action was also filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. The Mesa and Acosta Actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Court”). The derivative lawsuits name members of the Company’s 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 February 7, 2022, the Maryland 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 Maryland Court entered an order 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 Maryland 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 filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 21, 2022. On February 10, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2023. Defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss on May 11, 2023. On August 21, 2023, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2023, the Company filed an Answer to the consolidated amended complaint. On September 6, 2023, the court entered an order granting the individual defendants an extension of time to file their answer until November 6, 2023. On October 6, 2023, the Board of Directors of the Company formed a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) with full and exclusive power and authority of the Board to, among other things, investigate, review, and analyze the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims asserted in the pending derivative actions, including the claims that remain following the court’s order on the motion to dismiss in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. On November 7, 2023, the court entered an order granting the parties’ request to stay the Second Consolidated Derivative Action for up to six months from the date of entry of the order. This includes staying the deadline for the individual defendants to respond to the consolidated amended complaint.
On July 21, 2022, the Maryland Court issued a memorandum opinion and order remanding the Kirst Action to state court. On December 6, 2022, the parties to the Kirst Action filed a stipulated schedule pursuant to which the plaintiffs were expected to file an amended complaint on December 22, 2022, and either (i) the parties would file a stipulated stay of the Kirst Action or (ii) the defendants would file a motion to stay the case by January 23, 2023. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 30, 2022. On January 23, 2023, defendants filed a motion to stay the Kirst action. On February 22, 2023, the parties in the Kirst Action filed for the Court’s approval of a stipulation staying the Kirst Action pending the resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. On March 22, 2023, the Court entered an order staying the Kirst Action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. The parties continue to discuss next steps in the litigation following the Maryland Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Derivative Action.
On August 30, 2022, the Mesa Action was filed. On October 3, 2022, the Delaware 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. On January 9, 2023, following the ruling on the motion to dismiss the Sinnathurai Action, the Delaware Court entered an order granting the Mesa Action parties’ request to set a briefing schedule in connection with a motion to stay by defendants. On February 28, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion and stayed the Mesa Action pending the entry of a final, non-appealable judgment in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. On August 31, 2023, the Mesa plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay in the Mesa Action. On October 6, 2023, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay. On October 17, 2023, the Mesa plaintiff filed his reply in further support of his motion to lift the stay.
On December 7, 2022, the Acosta Action was filed. On February 6, 2023, defendants accepted service of the complaint and summons in the Acosta Action. On March 9, 2023, the court entered an order granting the parties’ request to stay the Acosta Action pending the entry of a final, non-appealable judgment in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. On October 13, 2023, the parties filed, and the Delaware Court entered, a stipulated order providing that (i) if the Delaware Court declines to lift the stay in the Mesa Action, the Acosta Action will also remain stayed, and (ii) if the Delaware Court lifts the stay in the Mesa Action, the stay in the Acosta Action will also be lifted.
On April 17, 2023, the Needelman Action was filed. On July 12, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to stay the Needelman Action pending the Maryland Court’s decision on the motion to dismiss in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. The court entered that order on July 17, 2023. The parties continue to discuss next steps in the litigation following the Maryland Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. The financial impact of this claim, as well as the claims discussed above, is not estimable.
On October 6, 2023, the Company’s board of directors voted unanimously to form a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) vested with full power and authority with respect to, among other things, claims in the derivative lawsuits related to certain sales of Company stock by certain Company officers, directors, or employees. The SLC has retained its own independent counsel.
On November 18, 2022, the Company delivered written notice to Gavi to terminate the Gavi APA based on Gavi’s failure to procure the purchase of 350 million doses of prototype vaccine from the Company as required by the Gavi APA. As of November 18, 2022, the Company had only received orders under the Gavi APA for approximately 2 million doses. On December 2, 2022, Gavi issued a written notice purporting to terminate the Gavi APA based on Gavi’s contention that the Company repudiated the agreement and, therefore, materially breached the Gavi APA. Gavi also contends that, based on its purported termination of the Gavi APA, it is entitled to a refund of the Advance Payment Amount less any amounts that have been credited against the purchase price for binding orders placed by a buyer participating in the COVAX Facility. Since December 31, 2022, the remaining Gavi Advance Payment Amount, which is $696.4 million as of September 30, 2023, pending resolution of the dispute with Gavi related to a return of the remaining Advance Payment Amount, has been classified within Other current liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. On January 24, 2023, Gavi filed a demand for arbitration with the International Court of Arbitration based on the claims described above. The Company filed its Answer and Counterclaims on March 2, 2023. On April 5, 2023, Gavi filed its Reply to the Company’s Counterclaims. On August 24, 2023, Gavi filed a Statement of Claim, and on September 21, 2023, the Company filed a Statement of Defense and Counterclaim. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for July 2024, with a written decision to follow. Arbitration is inherently uncertain, and while the Company believes that it is entitled to retain the remaining Advance Payment Amount received from Gavi, it is possible that it could be required to refund all or a portion of the remaining Advance Payment Amount from Gavi.
On September 30, 2022, the Company and Fujifilm entered into the Fujifilm Settlement Agreement regarding amounts due to Fujifilm in connection with the termination of manufacturing activity at FDBT under the CSA dated August 20, 2021 and the MSA by and between the Company and Fujifilm. The MSA and CSA established the general terms and conditions applicable to Fujifilm’s manufacturing and supply activities related to the Company’s prototype vaccine under the associated statements of work. Pursuant to the Fujifilm Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay up to $185.0 million (the “Settlement Payment”) to Fujifilm in connection with cancellation of manufacturing activity at FDBT. Under the Fujifilm Settlement Agreement, the final two quarterly installments due to Fujifilm were subject to Fujifilm’s obligation to use commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate losses associated with the vacant manufacturing capacity caused by the termination of manufacturing activities at FDBT under the CSA. Any replacement revenue achieved by Fujifilm’s mitigation efforts between July 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023 would offset the final two settlement payments owed by the Company. On October 2, 2023, the Company sent a notice of breach under the Fujifilm Settlement Agreement to Fujifilm setting forth the Company’s position that Fujifilm had not used commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate losses. The Company withheld the $34.3 million installment payment due to Fujifilm on September 30, 2023, pending resolution of the issues identified in the notice of breach (see Note 4). On October 30, 2023, FDBT filed a demand for arbitration with JAMS seeking payment of the withheld installment payment.
The Company is also involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these other legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, the Company does not expect the resolution of these other legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.