Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

10.  Commitments and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of our business, we enter into agreements with third parties, such as business partners, clinical sites and suppliers, that include usual and customary indemnification provisions. We generally reciprocally agree to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred with respect to products or product candidates, use of such products or other actions taken or omitted by the parties. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is frequently not limited. We have not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these provisions. As a result, the estimated fair value of liabilities relating to indemnification provisions is minimal. We have no liabilities recorded for these provisions as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

Progenics is a party to a proceeding brought by a former employee complaining that the Company violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the federal Sarbanes-Oxley law by terminating the former employee. The Company believes the former employee's claims are without merit and is contesting the matter vigorously. The federal District Court hearing the case issued in July 2013 an order denying our motion for summary judgment dismissing the former employee's complaint, making it likely that the proceeding will continue to trial. Given the inherent uncertainty attendant to the proceeding, it is not possible at this time to estimate the likelihood or potential magnitude of any outcome, and we have accordingly not recorded any associated liability in these Consolidated Financial Statements.

Progenics in October 2013 commenced an arbitration with Ono under the provisions of the parties' License Agreement, following a communication from Ono that it has determined to discontinue development of subcutaneous Relistor in Japan because of "commercial concerns" that Ono contends would permit it to cease development and terminate the Agreement. Under our Agreement with Ono, Ono may cease development of subcutaneous Relistor only if it terminates the License Agreement, which it may do unilaterally only if Progenics is in material default. Progenics is not in default under the Agreement, but Ono has asked the arbitration panel to declare that it is and to rescind the Agreement, both of which Progenics believes are without merit and is opposing.  Ono has not terminated the Agreement.