Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

16. Commitments and Contingencies

Contingent Consideration

In connection with the NOCDURNA^® license agreement and asset purchase we entered into with Ferring in October 2020, the Company paid Ferring an upfront payment of $5.0 million upon execution and will pay an additional $2.5 million at one year from execution. Ferring is eligible for additional commercial milestone payments potentially totaling up to $17.5 million based on the Company’s net sales of NOCDURNA^® in the United States.

Pending Litigation

From time to time, the Company may be involved in various legal matters generally incidental to its business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, after discussion with legal counsel, management is not aware of any matters for which the likelihood of a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and which could have a material impact on its consolidated financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell (“Smith”), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.  The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the NDA for XYOSTED^®; and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the approval prospects for XYOSTED^®.  On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff.  On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the complaint, which the court granted. Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on October 9, 2018. On November 26, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2019 and defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on February 25, 2019. On July 2, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint against the same parties alleging substantially similar claims. On September 12, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on October 28, 2019 and defendants’ reply in support of their motion was filed on November 27, 2019. On April 28, 2020, the court dismissed the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The court further ordered that plaintiff may file an amended complaint by May 29, 2020 and provide the court with a form of the amended complaint that indicates in what respect(s) it differs from the complaint which it proposes to amend. On May 29, 2020, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Third

Amended Class Action Complaint and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 10, 2020. Briefing on defendants’ motion was complete on August 25, 2020. On February 26, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. If plaintiff chooses to file an appeal, it would be due on March 29, 2021. The Company believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit and intends to continue to defend them vigorously to the extent an appeal is filed.

On January 12, 2018, a stockholder of the Company filed a derivative civil action, captioned Chiru Mackert, derivatively on behalf of Antares Pharma, Inc., v. Robert F. Apple, et al., in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division, Mercer County (Case No. C-000011-18).  On January 17, 2018, another stockholder filed a derivative action in the same court, captioned Vikram Rao, Derivatively on Behalf of Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Robert F. Apple, et al. (Case No. C-000004-18). Both complaints name Robert F. Apple, Fred M. Powell, Thomas J. Garrity, Jacques Gonella, Anton Gueth, Leonard S. Jacob, Marvin Samson and Robert P. Roche, Jr. as defendants, and the Company as nominal defendant, and they assert claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets arising from the same facts underlying the Smith securities class action.  The plaintiffs seek damages, corporate governance and internal procedure reforms and improvements, restitution, reasonable attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, costs, and expenses. The parties have filed a stipulation and order consolidating the two actions and staying the proceedings pending the court’s decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss the Smith action; the motion to dismiss in Smith was granted on February 26, 2021. In accordance with the terms of the stipulation and order, the parties shall submit a proposed order regarding the derivative action.

On January 17, 2018, a stockholder of the Company filed a derivative civil action, captioned Robert Clark, Derivatively on Behalf of Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Robert F. Apple, et al. (“Clark”) (Case No. 3:18-cv-00703-MAS-DEA), against Robert F. Apple, Thomas J. Garrity, Jacques Gonella, Leonard S. Jacob, Marvin Samson, Anton G. Gueth and Robert P. Roche, Jr. as defendants, and Company as a nominal defendant.  The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and a violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This complaint relates to the same facts underlying the Smith securities class action and the other derivative actions.  The plaintiff in Clark seeks damages, corporate governance and internal procedure reforms and improvements, reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses. The parties have filed a stipulation and order staying the action pending the court’s decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss the Smith action; the motion to dismiss in Smith was granted on February 26, 2021. After the expiration of all appeals related to the Smith dismissal, the parties shall submit a proposed order regarding the derivative action.