13. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is a party to, or otherwise involved in, legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. As of the date of this report, except as described below, the Company is not aware of any proceedings, threatened or pending, against it which, if determined adversely, would have a material effect on its business, results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. filed suit against us in federal court in Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no insurance coverage for any settlement, judgment, or defense costs in the class and derivative litigation, that the monies totaling approximately $1 million it paid to the Company in connection with the SEC investigation were not covered by insurance, and for recoupment of the monies already paid. We have retained counsel to defend us which has filed an answer to the complaint denying its material allegations, as well as a counterclaim against Liberty for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, bad faith and violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, alleging among other things that Liberty wrongfully denied the Company’s claims for coverage of the class and derivative litigations, and seeking money damages. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. filed suit against us in federal court in Delaware seeking a declaratory judgement that there was no insurance coverage for any settlement, judgement, or defense costs in the class and derivative litigation, the monies totaling approximately $1 million it paid to the Company in connection with the SEC request for information in an investigation was not covered by insurance, and for the recoupment of the monies already paid. On June 7, 2022, the court filed a Stipulation and Order for Entry of Judgment in the amount of $1,359,063.72 in favor of Liberty (the “Judgment”) following summary judgment granted by the court to Liberty on all but one of the matters at issue in the case. The Company filed an appeal in July 2022. Pending the outcome of the appeal, the Company paid $1.6 million into the registry of the court which stayed execution of the Judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit Court”) held oral argument on the appeal on March 8, 2023. As of the date of this Report, the Third Circuit Court has not issued a ruling on the appeal.

In November 2017, Lee Pederson, a former Biozone lawyer, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota against co-defendants the Company, Dr. Phillip Frost, OPKO Health, Inc. and Brian Keller alleging that defendants engaged in wrongful conduct related to Biozone, including causing Biozone to enter into an allegedly improper licensing agreement and engaged in alleged market manipulation (“Pederson I”). On September 13, 2018, the United States District Court granted the Company and its co-defendants’ motion to dismiss Pederson’s amended complaint in Pederson I for lack of personal jurisdiction in Minnesota. On October 11, 2018, Pederson filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The plaintiff’s appeal was denied and the dismissal of Pederson I affirmed in March 2020. Meanwhile, in July 2019, Lee Pederson had filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota against co-defendants the Company, Dr. Frost, and Daniel Fisher (“Pederson II”). In his complaint in Pederson II, Pederson alleges tortious interference by the Company and Dr. Frost with an alleged collaboration agreement between Mr. Pederson and Mr. Fisher. In Pederson II, Mr. Pederson seeks damages in the amount of $800,000 or such other amount as may be determined at trial. Pederson II had previously been stayed by the court, pending disposition of Pederson I. With that first lawsuit having been dismissed and appeal denied, the stay was lifted in Pederson II, and the Company and all other defendants in that case filed Motions to Dismiss the (then amended) complaint. On November 19, 2020 the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Pederson II, and further recommended that Pederson be restricted from filing any other actions in the District of Minnesota against defendants on the same or similar allegations as those in Pederson II, and on January 4, 2021 the District Court Judge adopted those recommendations and ordered dismissal of Pederson II. On February 1, 2021 Pederson filed a Notice of Appeal from the order of dismissal of Pederson II in the Eighth Circuit, and on December 29, 2021 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court. Thereafter, on or about January 11, 2022 Pederson sought via petition, re-hearing en banc by the Eighth Circuit. On October 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Pederson’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

COVID-19

Our administrative and finance activities are fully functional out of our Miami, Florida location and our research laboratory in Bothell, Washington remained open for essential operations while meeting COVID-19 quarantine challenges. Our scientists are also able to continue working remotely and we remain committed to meeting our corporate and development milestones throughout the year. We have experienced delays in our supply chain and with service partners as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, including recent raw material and test animal shortages affecting our research and development efforts. Also because of the unknown impact from COVID-19, it may have unanticipated material adverse effects on us in a number of ways including: