P. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Operating and Facility Lease Obligations

We have entered into certain operating leases, including certain office equipment which expire through 2014. Expense associated with these operating leases, including previous leases of certain automobiles, amounted to approximately $(0.3) million, $0.9 million, and $0.8 million for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The net credit for operating lease expense in 2013 is due to the excess of the sales value of certain automobiles we previously leased over the contracted value in connection with the termination of the automobile leases and the subsequent sales of the automobiles by the leasing companies. Future minimum lease payments associated with all non-cancellable equipment, service and lease agreements, excluding facility-related leases are approximately $0.1 million for 2014.

In June 2013, we entered into a lease agreement with BP Bay Colony LLC, or the Landlord, for the lease of certain real property located at 1100 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts, or the Premises, for use as our principal executive offices. Beginning in September 2013, the initial term of the lease is five years and two months with one five-year extension term at our option. During the extension period, the base rent will be an amount agreed upon by us and the Landlord. In addition to base rent, we are also required to pay a proportionate share of the Landlord's operating costs. The lease requires us to pay base rent during the initial term as follows (in thousands):

Period	Minimum Lease Payments

Year Ended December 31, 2014	$	1,128
Year Ended December 31, 2015		1,128
Year Ended December 31, 2016		1,128
Year Ended December 31, 2017		1,128
Thereafter		1,034


Total	$	5,546

The Landlord agreed to pay for certain agreed-upon improvements and we agreed to pay for any increased costs due to changes by us to the agreed-upon plans. We record all tenant improvements paid by us as leasehold improvements and amortize these improvements over the shorter of the estimated useful life of the improvement or the remaining life of the initial lease term. Amortization of leasehold improvements is included in depreciation expense.

In addition, in connection with our new facility lease, in June 2013 we delivered to the Landlord a security deposit of $0.4 million in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit. This security deposit will be reduced to $0.3 million on the second anniversary of the date the lease commenced. The cash securing this letter of credit is classified on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2013 as a long-term asset and is restricted in its use.

In June 2013, we also entered into an Assignment and Assumption of Lease, or the Assignment Agreement, with Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., or Shire, effecting the assignment to Shire of the right to occupy our former office space located at 100 Hayden Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts, or the Prior Space. Under the Assignment Agreement, the assignment to Shire became effective on September 21, 2013, the date of our departure from the Prior Space, and Shire assumed all of our obligations as the tenant of the Prior Space. The Assignment Agreement also provided for the conveyance of furniture and other personal property by us to Shire.

Facility-related rent expense was $1.5 million, $1.7 million and $1.7 million for 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Purchase Commitments

During 2013, we entered into various agreements with third parties for which we had remaining purchase commitments of approximately $6.8 million as of December 31, 2013. These agreements principally related to certain purchase orders for the production of Feraheme/Rienso, certain outsourced commercial activities, manufacturing commitments, our information technology infrastructure, and other operational activities.

Other Funding Commitments

As of December 31, 2013, we had several ongoing clinical studies in various clinical trial stages. Our most significant clinical trial expenditures were to clinical research organizations, or CROs. The contracts with CROs are generally cancellable, with notice, at our option. We have recorded accrued expenses in our consolidated balance sheet of approximately $0.3 million representing expenses incurred with these organizations as of December 31, 2013, net of any amounts prepaid to these CROs. As a result of our cancellation rights, we have not included these CRO contracts in the contractual obligations table above.

Severance Arrangements

We have entered into employment agreements or other arrangements with most of our executive officers and certain other employees, which provide for salary continuation payments and, in certain instances, the acceleration of the vesting of certain equity awards to such individuals in the event that the individual is terminated other than for cause, as defined in the applicable employment agreements or arrangements.

Indemnification Obligations

As permitted under Delaware law, pursuant to our certificate of incorporation, by-laws and agreements with all of our current directors, executive officers, and certain of our employees, we are obligated to indemnify such individuals for certain events or occurrences while the officer, director or employee is, or was, serving at our request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is not capped. Our director and officer insurance policy limits our initial exposure to $1.0 million and our policy provides significant coverage. As a result, we believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is likely to be immaterial.

We are also a party to a number of other agreements entered into in the ordinary course of business, which contain typical provisions and which obligate us to indemnify the other parties to such agreements upon the occurrence of certain events. Such indemnification obligations are usually in effect from the date of execution of the applicable agreement for a period equal to the applicable statute of limitations. Our aggregate maximum potential future liability under such indemnification provisions is uncertain. Except for expenses we incurred related to the ongoing class action lawsuit filed against us in March 2010, we have not incurred any expenses as a result of such indemnification provisions. Accordingly, we have determined that the estimated aggregate fair value of our potential liabilities under such indemnification provisions is not significant, and we have not recorded any liability related to such indemnification.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We accrue a liability for legal contingencies when we believe that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that we can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. We review these accruals and adjust them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and our views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in our accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For the matters referenced below, the liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and, therefore, accruals have not been made. In addition, in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for any matters in which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible, we will provide disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, however, we will provide disclosure to that effect.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on March 18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010. The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010 alleged that we and our former President and Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then-members of our Board, and certain underwriters in our January 2010 offering of common stock violated certain federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that our former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged omissions in a registration statement filed in January 2010. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock pursuant to our common stock offering on or about January 21, 2010. On August 11 and 15, 2011, respectively, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11, 2012. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's Opinion and Order and remanded the case to the District Court. On February 19, 2013, we filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on March 15, 2013. On March 22, 2013, we filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the case to the District Court pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals' February 4, 2013 decision. The Court of Appeals granted the Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013. On June 13, 2013, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, or the Petition, with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeal's decision and to have that decision overturned. On October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied our Petition, resulting in the case's return to the District Court for further proceedings relative to the SAC's surviving claims. On November 6, 2013, we filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss the SAC's surviving claims. On December 6, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to our Motion to Dismiss and we filed a reply brief in support of our Motion on December 27, 2013. The plaintiffs are seeking leave of court to file a sur-reply in further opposition to our Motion to Dismiss. No hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled. We are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any, and have therefore not recorded any potential estimated liability as we do not believe that such a liability is probable nor do we believe that a range of loss is currently estimable.

In July 2010, Sandoz GmbH, or Sandoz, filed with the European Patent Office, or the EPO, an opposition to a previously issued patent which covers ferumoxytol in EU jurisdictions. In October 2012, at an oral hearing, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked this patent. In December 2012, our notice of appeal of that decision was recorded with the EPO, which also suspended the revocation of our patent. On May 13, 2013, we filed a statement of grounds of appeal and on September 27, 2013, Sandoz filed a response to that statement. We will continue to defend the validity of this patent throughout the appeals process, which we expect to take two to three years. However, in the event that we do not experience a successful outcome from the appeals process, under EU regulations ferumoxytol would still be entitled to eight years of data protection and ten years of market exclusivity from the date of approval, which we believe would create barriers to entry for any generic version of ferumoxytol into the EU market until sometime between 2020 and 2022. This decision had no impact on our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2013. However, any future unfavorable outcome in this matter could negatively affect the magnitude and timing of future revenues, including royalties and milestone payments we may receive from Takeda pursuant to our collaboration agreement with Takeda. We do not expect to incur any related liability regardless of the outcome of the appeal and therefore have not recorded any liability as of December 31, 2013. We continue to believe the patent is valid and intend to vigorously appeal the decision.

We may periodically become subject to other legal proceedings and claims arising in connection with ongoing business activities, including claims or disputes related to patents that have been issued or that are pending in the field of research on which we are focused. Other than the above actions, we are not aware of any material claims against us at December 31, 2013. We expense legal costs as they are incurred.