Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, claims are asserted against the Company arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, liabilities, if any, arising from existing claims are not expected to have a material effect on the Company's earnings, financial position, or liquidity.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court for the Southern District of NY”), captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545 (the “Securities Action”). Subsequently, the Court for the Southern District of NY appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the Securities Action. On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws against NewLink, NewLink’s former Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and NewLink’s former Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, (collectively, the “Defendants”). The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to NewLink’s investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 14, 2017. On March 29, 2018, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in their claims. On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Defendants. Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements or omissions relating to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L that caused losses to NewLink's investors. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired NewLink’s stock during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed the case. On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July 2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was held on October 21, 2019. The Company intends to continue defending the Securities Action vigorously.

On or about April 26, 2017, Ronald Morrow filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of NewLink in the Court for the Southern District of NY, against NewLink’s former Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., NewLink’s former Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, and NewLink directors Thomas A. Raffin, Joseph Saluri, Ernest J. Talarico, III, Paul R. Edick, Paolo Pucci, and Lota S. Zoth (collectively, the “Morrow Defendants”), captioned Morrow v. Link., et al., Case 1:17-cv-03039 (the “Morrow Action”). The complaint alleges that the Morrow Defendants caused NewLink to issue false statements in its 2016 proxy statement regarding risk management and compensation matters in violation of federal securities law. The complaint also asserts state law claims against the Morrow Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, insider trading, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, alleging that the Morrow Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L, awarded themselves excessive compensation, engaged in illegal insider trading, and grossly mismanaged NewLink. The plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in the complaint but seeks restitution for damages to NewLink, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, as well as an order directing that proposals for strengthening board oversight be put to a vote of NewLink’s shareholders. The language for such proposals is not specified in the complaint. The plaintiff also contemporaneously filed a statement of relatedness, informing the Court for the Southern District of NY that the Morrow Action is related to Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545. On May 19, 2017, the plaintiff dismissed the Morrow Action without prejudice. Also on May 19, 2017, plaintiffs’ counsel in the Morrow Action filed a new shareholder derivative complaint that is substantively identical to the Morrow Action, except that the plaintiff is Rickey Ely. The latter

action is captioned Ely v. Link, et al., Case 17-cv-3799 (the “Ely Action”). By agreement of the parties and order dated June 26, 2017, the Court for the Southern District of NY temporarily stayed the Ely Action until the Securities Action is dismissed or otherwise finally resolved. Under the terms of the stay, the plaintiff in the Ely Action had until March 15, 2019 (30 days after dismissal of the Securities Action with prejudice) to file an amended derivative complaint or rest upon the current derivative complaint. By further agreement of the parties, dated March 15, 2019, the Ely Action will continue to be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Securities Action. If the Securities Action continues to be dismissed in its entirety following its appeal plaintiff in the Ely Action has agreed to withdraw or dismiss the action, with prejudice. The Company disputes the claims in the Ely Action and intends to defend against them vigorously.