8. Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies

Collaborative Agreements, Royalties and Milestone Payments

The Company is obligated to pay royalties, ranging from 0.5% to 5% of the selling price of certain licensed components and up to 40% of any sublicense fees to various universities and other research institutions based on future sales or licensing of products that incorporate certain products and technologies developed by those institutions.

In addition, the Company has committed to make potential future “milestone” payments to third parties as part of licensing and development programs. Payments under these agreements become due and payable only upon the achievement of certain developmental, regulatory and/or commercial milestones. Because it is uncertain if and when these milestones will be achieved, such contingencies, aggregating up to $76.5 million (assuming one product per contract meets all milestones events) have not been recorded on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company is unable to determine precisely when and if payment obligations under the agreements will become due as these obligations are based on milestone events, the achievement of which is subject to a significant number of risks and uncertainties.

Legal Proceedings

On July 24, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:15-cv-3425) against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Medical Officer.  The complaint asserts that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015. The plaintiffs also allege that Messrs. Varian and Rubin violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Based on a review of the allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiffs’ allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in which such a loss is recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.

On July 29, 2015, Medpace, Inc. (“Medpace”) filed a claim against the Company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County.  The complaint seeks to recover payment for services allegedly provided by Medpace to the Company during 2012-2013 in connection with preparation of a new drug application and seeks damages of approximately $465,000 (inclusive of claimed contractual pre-judgment interest). On August 24, 2015, XOMA filed its answer to the complaint and the parties are currently taking discovery. The Company expects that is likely it will be able to settle with Medpace for an amount less than $465,000 and recorded an accrual for the anticipated amount in the third quarter of 2015.  

On October 1, 2015, a stockholder purporting to act on the behalf of the Company, filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, purportedly asserting claims on behalf of the Company against certain of officers and the members of board of directors of the Company, captioned Silva v. Scannon, et al. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to the Company’s EYEGUARD-B study.  The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures.  Management believes the allegations have no merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in which such a loss is recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.