NOTE 12 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Facility Lease

The Company leases administrative office space in Palatine Illinois under a lease expiring March 31, 2015 for approximately $25 thousand annually.

Reglan®/Metoclopramide Litigation

Halsey Drug Company, as predecessor to us, has been named along with numerous other companies as a defendant in cases filed in three separate state coordinated litigations pending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California, respectively captioned In re: Reglan®/Metoclopramide Mass Tort Litigation, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, January Term, 2010, No. 01997; In re: Reglan® Litigation, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Case No. 289, Master Docket No. ATL-L-3865-10; and Reglan®/Metoclopramide Cases, Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4631, Superior Court No.: CJC-10-004631. In addition, Acura was served with a similar complaint by two individual plaintiffs in Nebraska federal court. In this product liability litigation against numerous pharmaceutical product manufacturers and distributors, including us, plaintiffs claim injuries from their use of the Reglan brand of metoclopramide and generic metoclopramide.

In the Pennsylvania state court mass tort proceeding, over 200 lawsuits have been filed against us and Halsey Drug Company alleging that plaintiffs developed neurological disorders as a result of their use of the Reglan brand and/or generic metoclopramide. Plaintiffs have filed approximately 150 lawsuits against us, but have served less than 50 individual lawsuits upon us in the New Jersey action. In the California action, we were not served with any complaints until the spring of 2011 when a single complaint including over 400 plaintiffs was served.

In the lawsuits filed to date, plaintiffs have not confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. We discontinued manufacture and distribution of generic metoclopramide more than 15 years ago. In addition, we believe the June 23, 2011 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA v. Mensing (“Mensing decision”) holding that state tort law failure to warn claims against generic drug companies are pre-empted by the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments and federal drug regulations will assist us in favorably resolving these cases. We have consistently maintained the position that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions.

In New Jersey, Generic Defendants, including Acura, filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision, which the Court granted with a limited exception. In June 2012, the New Jersey trial court dismissed Acura with prejudice.

In Philadelphia, and California, Generic Defendants, including Acura, also filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision.

On November 18, 2011, the Philadelphia trial court denied Generic Defendants’ dispositive motion. In December 2011, the Generic Defendants appealed this ruling. On April 13, 2012, all trial court proceedings were stayed pending decisions by the Pennsylvania appellate courts. An adverse decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court was issued in July 2013. Further appeal proceedings are pending. This appeal process eventually could result in dismissal of all of the Philadelphia cases against all generic defendants including Acura, although there can be no assurance in this regard. Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our insurance carrier.

In California, the trial court entered a May 25, 2012 Order denying Generic Defendants’ dispositive preemption motions. The Generics Defendants’ appeals from this order were denied by the California appellate courts. Therefore, subject to further developments, plaintiffs may be permitted to proceed with these lawsuits including state law claims based on (1) failing to communicate warnings to physicians through “Dear Doctor” letters; and (2) failure to update labeling to adopt brand labeling changes. California trial court also has acknowledged the preemptive effect of Mensing so that any claim “that would render the generic defendants in violation of federal law if they are found responsible under a state law cause of action, would not be permissible.” Nonetheless, plaintiffs have not confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. Therefore, we expect the number of plaintiffs with possible claims to be reduced voluntarily or by motion practice. Action will be taken in an effort to dismiss Acura from these cases, although there can be no assurance in this regard. Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our insurance carrier.

In Nebraska, the litigation against Acura has been stayed and will be dismissed if plaintiffs present no evidence of ingestion of generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our insurance carrier.

As any potential loss is neither probable nor estimable, we have not accrued for any potential loss related to these matters as of December 31, 2013 and we are presently unable to determine if any potential loss would be covered by our insurance carrier.

Financial Advisor Agreement

In connection with our August 2007 Unit Offering, we are obligated to pay a fee to our then financial advisor upon each exercise of the warrants issued in the Unit Offering, in proportion to the number of warrants exercised. The amount of the fee assuming 100% exercise of the remaining 1.9 million warrants is $0.38 million. The expiration date of these warrants is in August 2014. We have not reflected this obligation as a liability in our consolidated financial statements as the payment is contingent upon the timing and exercise of the warrants by each of the warrant holders. Such fee, if any, will be paid to the financial advisor and be offset against the equity proceeds as the warrants are exercised.