Commitments and Contingencies |
3 Months Ended | |
|---|---|---|
Sep. 30, 2016 | ||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] |
14. Commitments and Contingencies
Agreements In September 2013, the Company and Fraunhofer completed the Terms of Settlement for the TTA Seventh Amendment (the “Settlement Agreement”). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement various contractual obligations existing at June 30, 2013 were released, terminated or modified. The significant modifications post June 30, 2013 are of follows: The Company’s obligation under the TTA, prior to the 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 to perform at least $3 million in work requested and as directed by iBio before December 31, 2015. For the year ended June 30, 2015, $2.7 million in research and development services were performed by Fraunhofer. As of December 31, 2015, the total engagement of Fraunhofer for work requested by iBio is $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 under the terms of the TTA and for a period of 15 years, the Company shall 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 either of those technologies to third parties. The Company will be obligated to remit royalties to Fraunhofer only on technology license revenues that iBio actually receives and on revenues from actual sales by iBio of products derived from the technology developed under the TTA until the later of November 2023 or until such time as the aggregate royalty payments total at least $4 million. All new intellectual property invented by Fraunhofer during the period of the TTA is owned by and is required to be transferred to iBio. The Company has no financial obligations to Fraunhofer with respect to the Company’s use of 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. Under the CLA and bilateral agreement between iBio and Fraunhofer dated December 27, 2010, Fraunhofer, which has been engaged to act as the Company’s subcontractor for performance of research and development services for the new research and development plan, will bill Fiocruz directly on behalf of the Company at the rates, amounts and times provided in the Amended Agreement, and the proceeds of such billings and only the proceeds will be paid to Fraunhofer for its services so the Company’s expense is equal to its revenue and no profit is 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 is $3.0 million. See Note 7 - 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 January 14, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), the Company entered into an exclusive worldwide License Agreement (“LA”) with the University of Pittsburgh (“UP”) covering all of the U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications and related intellectual property owned by UP pertinent to the use of endostatin peptides for the treatment of fibrosis. The Company paid an initial license fee of $20,000 and is required to pay all of UP’s patent prosecution costs that were incurred prior to, totaling $30,627, and subsequent to the Effective Date. On each anniversary date the Company is to pay license fees ranging from $25,000 to $150,000 for the first five years and $150,000 on each subsequent anniversary date until the first commercial sale of the licensed technology. Beginning with commercial sales of the technology or approval by the FDA or foreign equivalent, the Company will be required to pay milestone payments, royalties and a percentage of any non-royalty sublicense income to UP. 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. Lawsuits 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. Briefing was completed on a motion to dismiss filed by Fraunhofer in lieu of filing an answer to the complaint. Fraunhofer also moved for a protective order in connection with certain discovery served by iBio. The Court bifurcated the action to first resolve the threshold question in the case – the scope of iBio’s ownership of the technology developed or held by Fraunhofer — before 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 on this threshold issue on April 29, 2016, 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 is entitled to receive a transfer of the technology from Fraunhofer. On September 19, 2016, Fraunhofer informed the Court that it does not intend to pursue its motion for protective order at this time. iBio has sought leave of Court to supplement and amend its current complaint to add additional state law claims against Fraunhofer. Fraunhofer opposes this motion. The Company is unable to predict the further outcome of this action at this time. 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 preliminary approval of the settlement. The terms of the settlement are subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court. The Company expects that the settlement will be funded by the Company’s insurance carrier. |