Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2017
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]||
In September 2013, the Company and Fraunhofer entered into an agreement, the Terms of Settlement For TTA Seventh Amendment (the “2013 Settlement Agreement”). Under the terms of the 2013 Settlement Agreement, various payment obligations, including accrued payment obligations existing at June 30, 2013, were released, terminated or modified. The significant modifications are of follows:
The Company’s obligation under the TTA, prior to the 2013 Settlement Agreement, to make three $1 million payments to Fraunhofer in April 2013, November 2013, and April 2014 (the “Guaranteed Annual Payments”) was terminated and replaced with an undertaking to engage Fraunhofer for at least $3 million in work requested and directed by iBio before December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2015, the total engagement of Fraunhofer for such work requested was at least $3.0 million. In addition to the foregoing, the Company sought to engage Fraunhofer for substantial additional other work, but Fraunhofer did not respond to the Company’s requests for proposals for such work.
The Company’s obligation to remit to Fraunhofer minimum annual royalty payments in the amount of $200,000 was terminated. Instead, the 2013 Settlement Agreement provided that, for a period of up to 15 years, the Company would pay Fraunhofer one percent (1%) of all receipts derived by the Company from sales of products produced utilizing the iBioLaunch or iBioModulator technology and ten percent (10%) of all receipts derived by the Company from licensing those technologies to third parties. The 2013 Settlement Agreement provided for royalty payments to Fraunhofer only on technology license revenues that iBio actually would receive, and on revenues from actual sales by iBio of products derived from the technology developed by Fraunhofer under the TTA, until the later of November 2023 or until such time as the aggregate royalty payments totaled at least $4 million. All new intellectual property invented by Fraunhofer during the period of the TTA is owned by and was required to be transferred to iBio, and Fraunhofer was required to make technology transfer, which Fraunhofer refused to perform. In the lawsuit against Fraunhofer, iBio is seeking rescission of these royalty provisions of the 2013 Settlement Agreement. In any event, the 2013 Settlement Agreement does not apply to, and the Company has no financial obligations to Fraunhofer with respect to, the Company’s use of, or revenues derived from, technologies developed independently of Fraunhofer.
On June 12, 2014, Fiocruz, Fraunhofer and iBio executed an amendment to the CLA (the “Amended Agreement”) to create a new research and development plan for the development of a recombinant Yellow Fever vaccine providing revised reporting, objectives, estimated budget, and project billing process. By its execution of the Amended Agreement, iBio again engaged Fraunhofer to act as the Company’s subcontractor for performance of research and development services for the new research and development plan covered by the Amended Agreement and to have Fraunhofer bill Fiocruz directly on behalf of the Company at the rates, amounts and times provided in the Amended Agreement with the proceeds of such billings and only the proceeds paid to Fraunhofer for its services so the Company’s expense is equal to its revenue and no profit would be recognized for these activities under the Amended Agreement. For the year ended June 30, 2015, $2.1 million in research and development services were performed by Fraunhofer for the Company pursuant to the amended CLA. As of December 31, 2015, the total engagement of Fraunhofer for work requested by iBio was at least $3.0 million. See Note 8 - Significant Vendors for additional information. In addition to the foregoing, the Company sought to engage Fraunhofer for substantial additional other work, but Fraunhofer did not respond to the Company’s requests for proposals for such work.
On December 30, 2013, the Company entered into a Project Agreement with the Medical University of South Carolina (“MUSC”) providing for the performance of research and development services by MUSC related to peptides for the treatment of fibrosis. The agreement requires the Company to make payments totaling $78,000 through December 1, 2014 and provides the Company with certain intellectual property rights. Effective September 1, 2014, the Company and MUSC executed an Amendment to the agreement. The Amendment extended the term of the agreement to December 31, 2015 and increased the total payments due MUSC from the Company by $161,754.
Lease Bryan, Texas
As discussed above, iBio CDMO is leasing its facility in Bryan, Texas from the Second Eastern Affiliate under the Sublease. See Note 10 for more details of the Sublease.
The base rent is subject to increase annually in accordance with increases in the CPI. The Company incurred rent expense of $15,370 in 2017 related to the increases in the CPI.
On March 17, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Fraunhofer and Vidadi Yusibov (“Yusibov”), Fraunhofer’s Executive Director, seeking monetary damages and equitable relief based on Fraunhofer’s material and continuing breaches of their contracts with the Company. On September 16, 2015, the Company voluntarily dismissed its action against Yusibov, without prejudice, and thereafter on September 29, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Amended Complaint against Fraunhofer alleging material breaches of its agreements with the Company and seeking monetary damages and equitable relief against Fraunhofer. The Court bifurcated the action to first resolve the threshold question in the casethe scope of iBio’s ownership of the technology developed or held by Fraunhoferbefore proceeding with the rest of the case and the parties stipulated their agreement to that approach. After considering the parties’ written submissions and oral argument, the Court resolved the threshold issue in favor of iBio on July 29, 2016, holding that iBio owns all proprietary rights of any kind to all plant-based technology of Fraunhofer developed or held as of December 31, 2014, including know-how, and was entitled to receive a technology transfer from Fraunhofer. Fraunhofer’s motion to dismiss iBio’s contract claims was denied by the Court on February 24, 2017. The Court at that time also granted, over Fraunhofer’s opposition, iBio’s motion to supplement and amend the Complaint to add additional state law claims against Fraunhofer. Fraunhofer filed an answer and counterclaims in March 2017, but in May 2017, Fraunhofer obtained new counsel, and with iBio’s agreement (as a matter of procedure), filed an amended answer and amended counterclaims in July 2017. The Company replied to those counterclaims on August 9, 2017 and included certain counter-counterclaims, which Fraunhofer moved to dismiss on August 30, 2017. The parties have continued to proceed with written discovery.
On December 4, 2015, a putative derivative action captioned Savage, Derivatively on Behalf of iBio, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Robert B. Kay, Arthur Y. Elliott, James T. Hill, Glenn Chang, Philip K. Russell, John D. McKey, and Seymour Flug, Defendants, and iBio, Inc., Nominal Defendant was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The action alleged that the Company and its management made misstatements about the Company’s business resulting either from (i) a failure by iBio’s directors to establish a system of controls over the Company’s disclosures, or (ii) the directors’ consciously ignoring “red flags” relating to disclosures, and sought to recover an unspecified amount of damages. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them. On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Verified Amended Complaint that added an additional named plaintiff and alleged derivative claims generally along the same lines as the original complaint, together with purported direct breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims based on the same conduct. The Verified Amended Complaint sought to recover an unspecified amount of damages. On April 29, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was filed on June 6, 2016. On June 22, 2016, the plaintiffs advised the Court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle, and on July 1, 2016, the Court ordered that the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss be withdrawn without prejudice. The parties entered a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of September 20, 2016. On October 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court seeking an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and providing for notice to iBio shareholders of the proposed settlement. On January 20, 2017, the Court issued an order that provided for notice to iBio shareholders of the proposed settlement, scheduled a final fairness hearing on April 24, 2017, and denied as moot the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary approval of the settlement. The final hearing was held on April 24, 2017. On May 3, 2017, the Court entered a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the action. The settlement has been funded by the Company’s insurance carrier.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef