Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies |
9 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Sep. 30, 2011 | |
| Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] | |
| Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies |
10. Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies
On April 9, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California, in a lawsuit captioned Hedrick et al. v. Genentech, Inc. et al, Case No. 09-446158. The complaint asserts claims against Genentech, the Company and others for alleged strict liability for failure to warn, strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, wrongful death and other claims based on injuries alleged to have occurred as a result of three individuals' treatment with RAPTIVA®. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Since then, additional complaints have been filed in the same court, bringing the total number of pending cases to seventy six. The cases have been consolidated as a coordinated proceeding. All of the complaints allege the same claims and seek the same types of damages based on injuries alleged to have occurred as a result of the plaintiffs' treatment with RAPTIVA®. On July 15, 2011, the Court dismissed with prejudice one of the cases in this coordinated proceeding, White v. Genentech, Inc., et al, Case No. RG-09-484026. On September 8, 2011, the Court granted defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment in two cases, Guerrero (Case No. RG-10-518396) and Harwell (Case No. RG-09-464039), and dismissed both cases. On September 19, 2011, the Court sustained defendants' Demurrer to another case (Young, Case No. RG-11-569879) and dismissed the complaint. On October 19, 2011, the Court granted defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in Krawiec v. Genentech, Inc., et al., Case No. RG10-524963. The Company's agreement with Genentech provides for an indemnity of XOMA and payment of legal fees by Genentech which the Company believes is applicable to these matters. The Company believes the claims against it to be without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
On August 4, 2010, a petition was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas in a case captioned McCall v. Genentech, Inc., et al., No. 10-09544. The defendants filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on September 3, 2010. The removed case is captioned McCall v. Genentech, Inc., et al., No. 3:10-cv-01747-B. The parties have fully briefed the plaintiff's Motion to Remand and are awaiting a final ruling from the Court. The petition asserts personal injury claims against Genentech, the Company, and others arising out of the plaintiff's treatment with RAPTIVA®. The petition alleges claims based on negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation and suppression, conspiracy, and actual and constructive fraud. The petition seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. On June 6, 2011, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy. The Company's agreement with Genentech provides for an indemnity of XOMA and payment of legal fees by Genentech which the Company believes is applicable to this matter. The Company believes the claims against it to be without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously
On January 7, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in a case captioned Massa v. Genentech, Inc., et al., No. 4:11CV70. On January 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a case captioned Sylvia, et al. v. Genentech, Inc., et al., No. 1:11-cv-10054-MLW. These two complaints allege the same claims against Genentech, the Company and others and seek the same types of damages as the complaints filed in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California referenced above. The Company's agreement with Genentech provides for an indemnity of XOMA and payment of legal fees by Genentech which the Company believes is applicable to these matters. The Company believes the claims against it to be without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
On April 8, 2011, four complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The cases are captioned: Muniz v. Genentech, et al., 5:11-cv-11489-JCO-RSW; Tifenthal v. Genentech, et al., 2:11-cv-11488-DPH-LJM; Blair v. Genentech, et al., 2:11-cv-11463-SFC-MJH; and Marsh v. Genentech, et al., 2:11-cv-11462-RHC-MKM. The complaints allege the same claims against Genentech, the Company and others and seek the same types of damages as the complaints filed in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California referenced above. All four cases have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. On October 26, 2011, the Court granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by Genentech and the Company in all four actions. Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal in each case. The Company's agreement with Genentech provides for an indemnity of XOMA and payment of legal fees by Genentech which the Company believes is applicable to this matter. The Company believes the claims against it to be without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
|