Legal Proceedings
−Removed: Lawsuit Against the FDA Approval of NADA
−Removed: On March 30, 2016, a coalition of NGOs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the FDA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and related individuals for their roles in the approval of AquAdvantage Salmon.
−Removed: Subsequently, the Fish and Wildlife Service was dismissed from the case.
−Removed: The coalition, including the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth, claims that the FDA had no statutory authority to regulate bioengineered animals, and, if it did, that the agency failed to analyze and implement measures to mitigate ecological, environmental, and socioeconomic risks that could impact wild salmon and the environment, including the risk that AquAdvantage Salmon could escape and threaten endangered wild salmon stocks.
−Removed: The discovery phase of litigation is now complete, and the case is moving forward on substantive briefing.
+Added: Lawsuit Against the FDA Approval of AquAdvantage salmon
+Added: On March 30, 2016, a coalition of non-governmental organizations filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the FDA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and related individuals for their roles in the approval of AquAdvantage salmon.
+Added: Subsequently, the Fish and Wildlife Service was dismissed from the case, and AquaBounty joined the case as an intervenor to protect AquaBounty’s interests.
+Added: The coalition, including the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth, claimed that the FDA had no statutory authority to regulate bioengineered animals, and, if it did, that the agency failed to analyze and implement measures to mitigate ecological, environmental, and socioeconomic risks that could impact wild salmon and the environment, including the risk that AquAdvantage salmon could escape and threaten endangered wild salmon stocks.
+Added: In December 2019 the court found that FDA had authority/jurisdiction over genetically engineered animals, and in November 2020, the judge remanded the Environmental Assessment (the approval) to FDA on National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) grounds.
+Added: The decision does not have a current business impact on AquaBounty’s egg production in Prince Edward Island, Canada or AquaBounty’s salmon production in Albany, Indiana.
+Added: In December 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment.
+Added: In February 2021, the judge denied that motion.
Other than as set forth above, we are not party to any legal proceedings the outcome of which, we believe, if determined adversely to us, would individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on our future business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.
3 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.