XML 28 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.7.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

In September 2012, the Company entered into an operating lease for office space in Norcross, GA for a term of twenty-six months, beginning on October 1, 2012 and ending November 30, 2014 at a rate of approximately $3,000 per month. In June 2014, the Company signed an amendment to the lease extending the term through November 30, 2017 with a base monthly rental of approximately $3,300 through the extended term. The original lease provided for free rent for the first two months of the lease and required a security deposit of $6,000. In addition to base rental payments included in the contractual obligations table above, the Company is responsible for our pro-rata share of the operating expenses for the building.

Rent expense under this operating lease was $50,000 and $47,000 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Future minimum payments under this lease as of December 31, 2016 are as follows (in thousands):

 

Year ended December 31,

      

2017

     41  
  

 

 

 

Total

   $ 41  
  

 

 

 

Shareholder Class Actions and Derivative Lawsuits

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the “Nevada District Court”) alleging claims for purported violations of the federal securities laws against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any obligation to respond to the complaints then on file, and providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended complaint to be filed by a lead plaintiff(s) to be appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff (“Plaintiff’). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) on May 8, 2015. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the “Class Action Individual Defendants”) violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. The Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual Defendants and one of the Company’s shareholders face liability for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on June 26, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the putative class action with prejudice and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the dismissal order and final judgment. Following full briefing and oral argument of the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit entered an order on December 15, 2016, affirming the judgment dismissing all claims against the defendants with prejudice.

On August 1 and 25, 2014, persons claiming to be Galectin shareholders filed putative shareholder derivative complaints in the Nevada District Court, seeking recovery on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s directors and officers. On September 10, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order consolidating the two cases, relieving the defendants of any obligation to respond to the initial complaints, and providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated complaint to be filed by the plaintiffs. On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the consolidated putative derivative litigation to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (hereinafter referred to as the “Georgia Federal Derivative Action.”). The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 27, 2015. On April 6, 2015, the Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Rather than respond to those motions, the plaintiffs sought and obtained leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint (the “Complaint”) on May 26, 2015. The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s directors and officers (the “Derivative Action Individual Defendants”) breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s shareholders by causing or permitting the Company to make allegedly false and misleading public statements concerning the Company’s financial and business prospects. The Complaint also alleges that the Derivative Action Individual Defendants violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making false or misleading statements of material fact in the Company’s proxy filings, committed waste of corporate assets, were unjustly enriched, and that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duties through allegedly improper sales of Galectin stock. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Derivative Action Individual Defendants and one of the Company’s shareholders aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the Company, corporate governance reforms, disgorgement of profits, benefits and compensation by the defendants, costs, and attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint on July 8, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the Georgia Federal Derivative Action with prejudice and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the dismissal order and final judgment. On July 7, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as the Plaintiffs failed to timely file their appeal brief. In September 2016, the Board received a demand letter from one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action. The demand letter, among other things, requests that the Board investigate the conduct alleged in the Complaint and implement certain remedial measures purportedly designed to address the alleged conduct. It is expected that the Board will consider the demand letter in due course and in light of the related pending shareholder litigation described herein.

On August 29, 2014, another alleged Galectin shareholder filed a putative shareholder derivative complaint in state court in Las Vegas, Nevada, seeking recovery on behalf of the Company against the same Galectin directors and officers who are named as defendants in the derivative litigation pending in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action. The plaintiff in the Nevada action subsequently filed first and second amended complaints. The second amended complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action (except that the Nevada action does not allege violations of the federal securities laws and does not assert any claim against the Galectin shareholder named as a defendant in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action), and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the Company, corporate governance reforms, disgorgement of profits, benefits and compensation by the defendants, costs, and attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Company and defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 22, 2015. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action (the “Intervenor Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to intervene in the Nevada action which, among other things, raised questions regarding the Nevada plaintiff’s standing. Thereafter, the Nevada plaintiff filed a motion to join additional plaintiffs. At a hearing held on June 11, 2015, the Nevada court: (i) granted the Intervenor Plaintiffs’ motion to intervene; (ii) directed the Intervenor Plaintiffs to file a complaint in intervention; (iii) directed the Nevada plaintiff to file a motion for leave to file a further amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs; (iv) stated that the defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint were denied “at this point;” (v) ordered the Nevada action stayed until December 11 , 2015; and (vi) directed the parties to submit a status report on December 11, 2015, updating the court on the progress and status of the Georgia Federal Derivative Action. On July 9, 2015, pursuant to the Nevada State Court’s instruction, the Intervenor Plaintiffs filed a complaint-in-intervention in Nevada State Court, asserting similar claims to the ones they alleged in the Georgia Federal Derivative Action described above. On December 11, 2015, further to the Nevada State Court’s instruction, the parties submitted status reports detailing the status of the Georgia Federal Derivative Action. On January 5, 2016, the Nevada State Court held a status conference during which the dismissal of the Georgia Federal Derivative Action was discussed. Subsequent to that conference, on January 19, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Nevada State Court litigation based on the dismissal of the similar Georgia Federal Derivative Action, among other grounds. Following full briefing and a hearing on March 3, 2016, the Nevada State Court granted dismissal of the Nevada State Court litigation. Notice of Entry of the Nevada State Court’s order dismissing the Nevada State Court litigation was docketed on June 21, 2016. The Nevada plaintiff and Intervenor Plaintiffs (“Appellants”) have filed notices of appeal seeking review of the Nevada State Court’s dismissal order. It is expected that the appeal will be fully briefed by May 2017.

Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages, are in the early stages of the proceedings, and are subject to appeal. In addition, because most legal proceedings are resolved over extended periods of time, potential losses are subject to change due to, among other things, new developments, changes in legal strategy, the outcome of intermediate procedural and substantive rulings and other parties’ settlement posture and their evaluation of the strength or weakness of their case against us. For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from, the matters described above. Based on information currently available, the Company does not believe that any reasonably possible losses arising from currently pending legal matters will be material to the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in such matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could materially and adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Other Legal Proceedings

The Company records accruals for such contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that their occurrence is probable and the related damages are estimable. There are no other pending legal proceedings except as noted above.