|
Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies
|
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Jun. 30, 2012
|
|
| 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 filed cases to seventy seven. 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. Effective April 18, 2012, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement that will result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all but one of the cases pending in Alameda County Superior Court. The one Alameda County case not included in this settlement agreement is Kilzer v. Genentech, Inc., et al, Case No. RG-10-502461 (the "Kilzer case"). On July 23, 2012, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment in the Kilzer case and dismissed that case with prejudice. The Company's agreement with Genentech provides for an indemnity of XOMA and payment of legal fees and funding of this settlement agreement 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 U.S. 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 petition asserts personal injury claims against Genentech, the Company and others arising out of plaintiff's treatment with RAPTIVA. Effective April 18, 2012, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement. On May 17, 2012, the Court entered an Order dismissing this case with prejudice. The Company's agreement with Genentech provides for an indemnity of XOMA and payment of legal fees and funding of this settlement agreement by Genentech, which the Company believes is applicable to these matters.
On January 7, 2011, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in a case captioned Massa v. Genentech, Inc., et al., No. 4:11CV70. This complaint alleges the same claims against Genentech, the Company and others and seeks the same types of damages as the complaints filed in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California referenced above. Effective April 18, 2012, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement. On July 11, 2012, the Court entered an Order dismissing this case with prejudice. The Company's agreement with Genentech provides for an indemnity of XOMA and payment of legal fees and funding of this settlement agreement by Genentech, which the Company believes is applicable to these matters.
On January 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the U.S. 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. On June 13, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, Onondaga County. Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on November 3, 2011. 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. No trial date has been set in either 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 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 U.S. 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 were transferred to the U.S. 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. On October 31, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in each case in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument was held on July 20, 2012. 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.
|