Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings. Legal Proceedings Relating to Vadadustat Opposition Proceedings Against Patents Covering Vadadustat In July 2011, a third party filed an opposition to our issued European Patent No. 2044005, or the ’005 EP Patent, in the European Patent Office, or the EPO. During the oral proceedings, which took place on April 10, 2013, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the ’005 EP Patent. This decision resulted in the maintenance of a claim directed to a compound chosen from a group of eight compounds, including vadadustat, as well as claims to compositions and methods for treating various diseases, including, but not limited to, anemia. Both parties appealed the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO. On February 27, 2018, we withdrew the ’005 EP Patent from appeal and filed a divisional patent application to pursue a focused claim set that includes claims for vadadustat, as well as pharmaceutical compositions and methods of treating anemia. In September 2018, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited filed an opposition to our issued Indian Patent No. 287720 in the Indian Patent Office. Opposition and Invalidity Proceedings Against FibroGen, Inc. Europe We filed an opposition in the EPO against FibroGen, Inc.’s, or FibroGen’s, European Patent No. 1463823, or the ’823 EP Patent on December 5, 2013, and an oral proceeding took place March 8 and 9, 2016. Following the oral proceeding, the Opposition Division of EPO ruled that the patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. FibroGen has appealed that decision. Likewise, we also filed an invalidity proceeding before the Japan Patent Office, or JPO, on June 2, 2014 against certain claims of FibroGen’s Japanese Patent No. 4804131, or the ’131 JP Patent, which is the Japanese counterpart to the ’823 EP Patent, and the JPO issued a preliminary decision finding all of the challenged claims to be invalid. FibroGen subsequently amended the claims and the JPO accepted the amendments. The resulting ’131 JP Patent does not cover vadadustat or any pyridine carboxamide compounds. On May 13, 2015, May 20, 2015 and July 6, 2015, we filed oppositions to FibroGen’s European Patent Nos. 2322155, or the ’155 EP Patent, 1633333, or the ’333 EP Patent, and 2322153, or the ’153 EP Patent in the EPO, respectively, requesting the patents be revoked in their entirety. These related patents claim, among other things, various compounds that either stabilize HIFα or inhibit a HIF hydroxylase or a HIF prolyl hydroxylase, or HIF-PH, for treating or preventing various conditions, including, among other things, iron deficiency, microcytosis associated with iron deficiency, anemia of chronic disease, anemia wherein the subject has a transferrin saturation of less than 20%, anemia refractory to treatment with exogenously administered erythropoietin and microcytosis in microcytic anemia. Such method of use patents do not prevent persons from using the compound for other uses, including any previously known use of the compound. In particular, these patents do not claim methods of using any of our product candidates for purposes of inhibiting HIF-PH for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease, or CKD. While we do not believe these patents will prevent us from commercializing vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD, we filed these oppositions to provide us and our collaborators with maximum flexibility for developing vadadustat and our pipeline of investigational oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor, or HIF-PHI, compounds. Oppositions to the ’155 EP Patent and the ’153 EP Patent were also filed in the EPO by Glaxo Group Limited, or Glaxo, and by Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft, and Bayer Animal Health GmbH, or, collectively, Bayer. Glaxo withdrew its oppositions on March 2, 2020. With regard to the opposition that we filed in Europe against the ’333 EP Patent, an oral proceeding took place on December 8 and 9, 2016. Following the oral proceeding, the Opposition Division of the EPO ruled that the patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. On December 9, 2016, FibroGen filed a notice to appeal the decision to revoke the ’333 EP Patent. An oral proceeding for the appeal is scheduled for February 2022. In oral proceedings held on May 29, 2017, regarding the ’155 EP Patent, the European Opposition Division ruled that the ’155 EP Patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. FibroGen filed a notice to appeal the decision to revoke the ’155 EP Patent on May 29, 2017. An oral proceeding for the appeal is scheduled for February 2022. 57 Subsequently, in related oral proceedings held on May 31, 2017 and June 1, 2017 for the ’153 EP Patent, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the patent after FibroGen significantly narrowed the claims to an indication for which vadadustat is not intended to be developed. We and Glaxo separately filed notices to appeal the decision to maintain the ’153 EP Patent on November 9, 2017. Bayer filed a notice to appeal the decision on November 14, 2017. An oral proceeding for the appeal is scheduled for February 2022. On April 3, 2019, we filed oppositions to FibroGen’s European Patent Nos. 2289531, or the ’531 EP Patent, and 2298301, or the ’301 EP Patent in the EPO, respectively, requesting the patents be revoked in their entirety. Oral proceedings for oppositions to the two patents are scheduled for September 2021. On February 10, 2020, we filed an opposition to FibroGen’s European Patent No. 2324834 in the EPO requesting the patent to be revoked in its entirety. Canada On May 21, 2018, we filed a Statement of Claim in Canadian Federal Court to challenge the validity of three of FibroGen’s HIF-related patents in Canada: CA 2467689, CA 2468083, and CA 2526496. On June 25, 2020, the parties agreed to dismiss the CA 2467689 patent from the lawsuit. On February 16, 2021, the parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Japan On June 22, 2018, we and our collaboration partner in Japan, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or MTPC, jointly filed a Request for Trial before the JPO to challenge the validity of one of FibroGen’s HIF-related patents in Japan, JP4845728. On July 20, 2018 and August 13, 2018, we and MTPC jointly filed a Request for Trial before the JPO to challenge the validity of two additional FibroGen HIF-related patents in Japan, JP5474872 and JP5474741, respectively. On September 26, 2019, the JPO conducted an invalidation trial for JP5474872 and JP4845728. On November 11, 2019, the JPO conducted an invalidation trial for JP5474741. On February 10, 2020, the JPO issued a pre-notice of a trial decision for JP4845728, which invalidated all claims except two claims in amended form. On March 11, 2020, the JPO issued a pre-notice of a trial decision for JP5474872, which invalidated all claims except one claim in amended form. On April 2, 2020, the JPO issued a pre-notice of a trial decision for JP5474741, which invalidated all claims except two claims in amended form. We do not believe these decisions will prevent our collaboration partner MTPC from launching vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in Japan. United Kingdom On December 13, 2018, we and our collaboration partner, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Otsuka, filed Particulars of Claim in the Patents Court of the United Kingdom, or the UK, to challenge the validity of FibroGen’s six HIF-related patents in the UK: the ’823 EP Patent (UK), the ’333 EP Patent (UK), the ’153 EP Patent (UK), the ’155 EP Patent (UK), European Patent (UK) No. 2,289,531, or the ’531 EP Patent (UK), and European Patent (UK) No. 2,298,301, or the ’301 EP Patent (UK). In May 2019, Astellas Pharma Inc., or Astellas, the exclusive licensee of FibroGen’s HIF-related patents, sued Akebia and Otsuka for patent infringement in the Patents Court of the UK. In September 2019, we and Otsuka filed an Amended Particulars of Claim to include FibroGen’s European Patent No. 1487472, or the ’472 EP Patent (UK). On February 28, 2020, the parties agreed to dismiss the ’472 EP Patent (UK) from the trial. A trial was conducted in March 2020. On April 20, 2020, the Patents Court of the UK issued a judgment in favor of Akebia, which invalidated all the claims at issue in each of the ’823 EP Patent (UK), the ’333 EP Patent (UK), the ’153 EP Patent (UK), the ’155 EP Patent (UK) and the ’301 EP Patent (UK). The ’531 EP Patent (UK) was amended to a single claim to recite one specific compound; this claim was held to be valid but not infringed by vadadustat. On June 11, 2020, FibroGen and Astellas appealed the Patents Court’s judgment on the invalidity of the ’823 EP Patent (UK), the ’301 EP Patent (UK), the ’333 EP Patent (UK), the ’153 EP Patent (UK), and the ’155 EP Patent (UK) in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). United States On March 29, 2021, we and our collaboration partner Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. filed a lawsuit against FibroGen and AstraZeneca AB in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of FibroGen’s twelve HIF-related patents in the United States: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,318,703, 8,466,172, 8,614,204, 9,920,011, 8,629,131, 8,604,012, 8,609,646, 8,604,013, 10,626,090, 10,894,774, 10,882,827, and 10,927,081. The defendants' response to the complaint is due June 4, 2021. Legal Proceedings Relating to Auryxia ANDA Litigation 58 On October 31, 2018, November 6, 2018, December 24, 2018 and February 4, 2019, Keryx received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, by Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA, or Lupin, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Teva, Chemo Research S.L., or Chemo, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., or Mylan, respectively, requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg ferric iron per tablet). On December 13, 2018, Keryx and its licensors, Panion & BF Biotech, Inc., or Panion, and Chen Hsing Hsu, M.D., filed a complaint for patent infringement against Lupin and Lupin Ltd., or the Lupin Defendants, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware District Court, arising from Lupin’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On December 19, 2018, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against Teva and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, or the Teva Defendants, in the Delaware District Court arising from Teva’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On February 1, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu filed a complaint for patent infringement against Chemo and Insud Pharma S.A., or the Chemo Defendants, in the Delaware District Court arising from Chemo’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On March 15, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu filed a complaint for patent infringement against Mylan in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia arising from Mylan’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On April 18, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to consolidate these four cases in the Delaware District Court for pretrial proceedings. On March 29, 2019, April 2, 2019, and April 12, 2019, Keryx received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding ANDAs submitted to the FDA by Lupin Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc., or Watson, a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Teva, and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., or Par, an Endo International company, or Endo, respectively, requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg ferric iron per tablet). On May 10, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu filed a complaint for patent infringement against Lupin Ltd. in the Delaware District Court arising from Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On May 10, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against Watson and the Teva Defendants, or the Watson Defendants, in the Delaware District Court arising from Watson’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On May 15, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Watson Defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, or the Nevada District Court, from Watson’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On May 23, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against Par in the Delaware District Court arising from Par’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On May 24, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against Par, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern New York District Court, arising from Par’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On June 4, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a notice of voluntary dismissal to dismiss the suit in the Nevada District Court in view of the Watson Defendants’ consent to venue of the Delaware District Court. On June 26, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of additional actions in the Delaware District Court against the Lupin Defendants and the Watson Defendants. On July 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order to consolidate all of our ANDA cases in Delaware District Court for pretrial proceedings. On August 26, 2019, Keryx filed an amended complaint against the Lupin Defendants in the Delaware District Court arising from the Lupin Defendants’ ANDA filings with the FDA. On September 19, 2019, the Delaware District court set a trial date for February 8, 2021. The trial was rescheduled for June 28, 2021. On January 13, 2021, the Delaware District court vacated the deadlines for the case involving Mylan pending resolution of a discovery dispute. On July 22, 2019, Keryx received from Teva a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On July 22, 2019, Keryx received from Watson a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On July 31, 2019, Keryx received from Lupin a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On July 31, 2019, Keryx received from Lupin Ltd. a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On September 17, 2019, Keryx received from Par a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On October 16, 2019, Keryx received from Mylan a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On May 14, 2020, Keryx received from Chemo a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On April 27, 2020, the Delaware District Court conducted a Markman hearing concerning certain claim construction issues with respect to four Orange Book-listed patents, and issued an order in favor of Keryx. On August 2, 2019, Keryx and Panion entered into a settlement and license agreement with Par. This settlement resolved patent litigation brought by Keryx and Panion in response to Par’s ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Auryxia tablets prior to the expiration of the applicable patents. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Keryx and Panion will grant Par a license to market a generic version of Auryxia in the United States beginning on March 20, 2025 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier under certain circumstances customary for settlement agreements of this nature. Additionally, in accordance with the agreement, the parties terminated all ongoing litigation between Keryx and Panion and Par regarding Auryxia patents pending in the Delaware District Court and the Southern New York District Court. The settlement and license agreement is confidential and subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. On August 5, 2019, the parties filed a request to stay the litigation pending a review of the settlement and license agreement by these regulatory authorities. On September 6, 2019 and September 9, 2019, the Southern New York District Court and the Delaware District Court, respectively, entered a stipulation and order of dismissal filed by the parties to terminate the actions against Par. 59 On April 30, 2020, Keryx and Panion entered into a settlement and license agreement with Teva and Watson. This settlement resolved patent litigation brought by Keryx and Panion in response to Teva and Watson’s ANDAs seeking approval to market a generic version of Auryxia tablets prior to the expiration of the applicable patents. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Keryx and Panion will grant Teva and Watson a license to market a generic version of Auryxia in the United States beginning on March 20, 2025 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier under certain circumstances customary for settlement agreements of this nature. Additionally, in accordance with the agreement, the parties terminated all ongoing litigation between Keryx and Panion and Watson and Teva regarding Auryxia patents pending in the Delaware District Court. The settlement and license agreement is confidential and subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. On May 4, 2020, the Delaware District Court entered a stipulation and order of dismissal filed by the parties to terminate the action against Teva and Watson. On September 24, 2020, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu entered into a settlement and license agreement with the Lupin Defendants. This settlement resolved patent litigation brought by Keryx and Panion in response to Lupin and Lupin Ltd.’s ANDAs seeking approval to market a generic version of Auryxia tablets prior to the expiration of the applicable patents. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Keryx and Panion will grant Lupin and Lupin Ltd. a license to market a generic version of Auryxia in the United States beginning on March 20, 2025 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier under certain circumstances customary for settlement agreements of this nature. Additionally, in accordance with the agreement, the parties terminated all ongoing litigation among Keryx, Panion, the Lupin Defendants and Dr. Hsu regarding Auryxia patents pending in the Delaware District Court. The settlement and license agreement is confidential and subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. On October 5, 2020, the Delaware District Court entered a stipulation and order of dismissal filed by the parties to terminate the action against the Lupin Defendants. On March 25, 2021, Keryx and Panion entered into a settlement and license agreement with the Chemo Defendants. This settlement resolved patent litigation brought by Keryx and Panion in response to Chemo’s ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Auryxia tablets prior to the expiration of the applicable patents. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Keryx and Panion will grant Chemo a license to market a generic version of Auryxia in the United States beginning on March 20, 2025 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier under certain circumstances customary for settlement agreements of this nature. Additionally, in accordance with the agreement, the parties terminated all ongoing litigation among Keryx, Panion, and the Chemo Defendants regarding Auryxia patents pending in the Delaware District Court. The settlement and license agreement is confidential and subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. On March 26, 2021, the Delaware District Court entered a stipulation and order of dismissal filed by the parties to terminate the action against the Chemo Defendants. As a result of the timely filing of the lawsuit against Mylan in accordance with the relevant statute, a 30-month stay of approval expiring August 4, 2021 was imposed by the FDA on Mylan’s ANDA, absent an earlier judgment by the court in the lawsuit finding the patents at issue invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. We and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking, among other relief, an order that the effective date of FDA approval of the ANDA be a date no earlier than the expiration of each of the patents at issue and equitable relief enjoining Mylan from infringing these patents. On January 13, 2021, the Delaware District court vacated the deadlines for the case involving Mylan pending resolution of a discovery dispute. CMS Litigation On October 15, 2019, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District Court, against Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Alex M. Azar II in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Seema Verma in her official capacity as administrator for CMS challenging CMS’s decision that Auryxia would no longer be covered by Medicare for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia, or IDA, in adult patients with CKD not on dialysis, or the IDA Indication, and imposing a prior authorization requirement for Auryxia in the treatment of adult patients with CKD on dialysis, or the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. On October 29, 2019, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to provide relief while the lawsuit is pending, specifically, to restore coverage of Auryxia for the IDA Indication, and to remove the prior authorization requirement for Auryxia for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. In the alternative, we filed a motion for summary judgment with the court asking it to decide the case on the merits. On February 4, 2020, the court denied our request for a preliminary injunction. We filed an expedited appeal with the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit challenging the district court’s denial of our motion for a preliminary injunction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on August 14, 2020, and affirmed the district court’s denial of our request for a preliminary injunction on September 30, 2020. As a result, Auryxia remains not covered by Medicare for the IDA Indication and the prior authorization requirement for Auryxia for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication also remains in place. The case is now before the district court where the defendants have recently filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending. 60 Shareholder Litigation Relating to Auryxia Supply Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017). Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships, and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements were not made known to the market until Keryx’s August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia. By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to further amend his complaint, and also moved for class certification. The Massachusetts District Court heard oral argument on the motions for judgment on the pleadings and class certification on June 19, 2019. On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff’s motion for class certification, granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to further amend his Complaint. That same day, the Massachusetts District Court entered a final judgment in favor of defendants on all claims. On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on September 15, 2020, and a decision has not yet been issued. Two stockholder derivative complaints also were filed on December 16, 2016 against Keryx and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur and James Oliviero) certain of its former directors (Kevin J. Cameron, Daniel P. Regan, Steven C. Gilman, Michael Rogers Michael P. Tarnok, Joseph Feczko, Jack Kaye Wyche Fowler, Jr. and John P. Butler), some of whom are current directors and officers of ours, in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, one captioned Venkat Vara Prasad Malledi v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and one captioned James Anderson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Each of these two complaints generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, mismanagement and corporate waste. On June 27, 2017, the Superior Court of Massachusetts granted the parties’ motion to consolidate and stay the derivative litigations, and that stay remains in effect. All of the complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. It is expected that such complaints would be dismissed if the above-mentioned ruling of the Massachusetts District Court entering judgment for the defendants in the case brought under the securities laws stands; however, as discussed above, we are awaiting the outcome of the appeal of that judgment. Shareholder Litigation Relating to the Merger On June 28, 2018, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of ours, or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, we completed the Merger. In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael Rogers, some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors), and, with respect to the Rosenblatt action discussed below, the Merger Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the Delaware District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018). The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 23, 2018). On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula’s motion to consolidate the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Consolidated Action. The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action. On June 3, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 61 as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged misstatements or omissions related to (i) certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by our advisors and (ii) any alleged negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger. The Consolidated Complaint sought compensatory and/or rescissory damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an award of lead plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable allowance for attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees. The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice on August 2, 2019. On April 15, 2020, the Delaware District Court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, or the Second Consolidated Complaint. The Second Consolidated Complaint (i) asserts the same claims under the Exchange Act as the Consolidated Complaint, (ii) names the same defendants as the Consolidated Complaint, (iii) seeks the same relief as the Consolidated Complaint and (iv) as with the Consolidated Complaint, challenges as false or misleading alleged misstatements or omissions related to certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by our advisors. The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice on August 10, 2020. Briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss was completed on September 28, 2020, and the court has not yet issued a decision. On April 1, 2021, the Delaware District Court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the Second Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. On April 29, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On December 10, 2018, a stockholder of Keryx, Michael J. Donnelly, filed a complaint against Keryx pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Donnelly v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Donnelly Action. The Donnelly Action sought inspection of various Keryx books and records, purportedly to investigate “possible wrongdoing,” in connection with Keryx’s negotiation and approval of the Merger, as well as the independence of former members of Keryx’s Board of Directors, some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors. In addition to the production of books and records, the Donnelly Action sought costs and expenses incurred in the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. On January 31, 2019, Keryx answered the complaint in the Donnelly Action. The trial for the Donnelly Action took place on July 10, 2019. On October 24, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a written decision granting inspection, denying the plaintiff’s request for costs and expenses, and directing the parties to confer on the proper scope of the inspection. Keryx conferred with and produced books and records to the plaintiff in the Donnelly Action, and the Donnelly Action was dismissed on May 7, 2021. We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to continue vigorously defending against the shareholder lawsuits described in this Legal Proceedings section. There is no assurance, however, that we will be successful in the defense of these lawsuits, or any associated appeals, or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time. A resolution of these lawsuits in a manner adverse to us, however, could have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations in the period in which a particular lawsuit is resolved.