Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Stockholder Litigation
On November 12, 2021, Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Maryland Court”) against the Company and certain members of senior management, captioned Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al., No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (the “Sinnathurai Action”). On January 26, 2022, the Maryland Court entered an order designating David Truong, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and Jeffrey Gabbert as co-lead plaintiffs in the Sinnathurai Action. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 11, 2022, alleging that the defendants made certain purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s ability to manufacture prototype vaccine on a commercial scale and to secure the prototype vaccine’s regulatory approval. The amended complaint defines the purported class as those stockholders who purchased the Company’s securities between February 24, 2021 and October 19, 2021. On April 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On December 12, 2022, the Maryland Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Maryland Court dismissed all claims against two individual defendants and claims based on certain public statements challenged in the consolidated amended complaint. The Maryland Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants, and directed the Company and other remaining defendants to answer within fourteen days. On December 27, 2022, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses. On March 16, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and to appoint class representatives and counsel. The Company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion on September 22, 2023. On December 4, 2023, the parties agreed to a binding settlement in principle (the “Proposed Settlement”) to fully resolve the surviving claims in the Sinnathurai Action. Under the Proposed Settlement’s terms, the Company agreed to pay $47 million into a settlement fund, which will be funded by the Company’s directors and officers’ liability insurance and paid to members of a putative settlement class. On January 12, 2024, after the parties negotiated and executed a written agreement governing the Proposed Settlement, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for the Proposed Settlement’s preliminary approval. On January 23, 2024, the Maryland Court granted the motion for preliminary approval and, as requested by the parties, preliminarily certified, for the purposes of settlement only, the settlement class. The court also scheduled a settlement hearing to consider final approval of the settlement for May 23, 2024. Ahead of the May 23 settlement hearing, on April 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the Maryland Court’s final approval of the settlement. At the May 23 settlement hearing, the Maryland Court granted final approval of the settlement. The Maryland Court closed the Sinnathurai Action on May 24, 2024.
43
After the Sinnathurai Action was filed, eight derivative lawsuits were filed: (i) Robert E. Meyer v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:21-cv-02996-TDC (the “Meyer Action”), (ii) Shui Shing Yung v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:21-cv-03248-TDC (the “Yung Action”), (iii) William Kirst, et al. v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. C-15-CV-21-000618 (the “Kirst Action”), (iv) Amy Snyder v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:22-cv-01415-TDC (the “Snyder Action”), (v) Charles R. Blackburn, et al. v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 1:22-cv-01417-TDC (the “Blackburn Action”), (vi) Diego J. Mesa v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 2022-0770-NAC (the “Mesa Action”), (vii) Sean Acosta v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 2022-1133-NAC (the “Acosta Action”), and (viii) Jared Needelman v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. C-15-CV-23-001550 (the “Needelman Action”). The Meyer, Yung, Snyder, and Blackburn Actions were filed in the Maryland Court. The Kirst Action was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, and shortly thereafter removed to the Maryland Court by the defendants. The Needleman Action was also filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. The Mesa and Acosta Actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Court”). The derivative lawsuits name members of the Company’s board of directors and certain members of senior management as defendants. The Company is deemed a nominal defendant. The plaintiffs assert derivative claims arising out of substantially the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Sinnathurai Action. Collectively, the derivative complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, insider selling, unjust enrichment, violation of federal securities law, abuse of control, waste, and mismanagement. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.
On February 7, 2022, the Maryland Court entered an order consolidating the Meyer and Yung Actions (the “First Consolidated Derivative Action”). The plaintiffs in the First Consolidated Derivative Action filed their consolidated derivative complaint on April 25, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Maryland Court entered an order granting the parties’ request to stay all proceedings and deadlines pending the earlier of dismissal or the filing of an answer in the Sinnathurai Action. On June 10, 2022, the Snyder and Blackburn Actions were filed. On October 5, 2022, the Maryland Court entered an order granting a request by the plaintiffs in the First Consolidated Derivative Action and the Snyder and Blackburn Actions to consolidate all three actions and appoint co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead and liaison counsel (the “Second Consolidated Derivative Action”). The co-lead plaintiffs in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 21, 2022. On February 10, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2023. Defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss on May 11, 2023. On August 21, 2023, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2023, the Company filed an Answer to the consolidated amended complaint. On September 6, 2023, the court entered an order granting the individual defendants an extension of time to file their answer until November 6, 2023. On October 6, 2023, the Board of Directors of the Company formed a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) with full and exclusive power and authority of the Board to, among other things, investigate, review, and analyze the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims asserted in the pending derivative actions, including the claims that remain following the court’s order on the motion to dismiss in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. On November 7, 2023, the court entered an order granting the parties’ request to stay the Second Consolidated Derivative Action for up to six months from the date of entry of the order, and, on April 15, 2024, the court entered a further order extending the stay until June 6, 2024. On June 7, 2024, the court entered another order extending the stay until August 5, 2024. On August 5, 2024, the parties agreed to a further 90-day extension to November 4, 2024, which remains subject to court approval. The existing and proposed stays include the deadline for the individual defendants to respond to the consolidated amended complaint.
The Kirst Action was filed on December 28, 2021, and the defendants immediately removed the case to the Maryland Court. On July 21, 2022, the Maryland Court issued a memorandum opinion and order remanding the Kirst Action to state court. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 30, 2022. On January 23, 2023, defendants filed a motion to stay the Kirst action. On February 22, 2023, the parties in the Kirst Action filed for the Court’s approval of a stipulation staying the Kirst Action pending the resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. On March 22, 2023, the Court entered the parties’ stipulated stay of the Kirst Action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action.
On August 30, 2022, the Mesa Action was filed. On October 3, 2022, the Delaware Court entered an order granting the parties’ request to stay all proceedings and deadlines in the Mesa Action pending the earlier of dismissal of the Sinnathurai Action or the filing of an answer to the operative complaint in the Sinnathurai Action. On January 9, 2023, following the ruling on the motion to dismiss the Sinnathurai Action, the Delaware Court entered an order granting the Mesa Action parties’ request to set a briefing schedule in connection with a motion to stay by defendants. On February 28, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion and stayed the Mesa Action pending the entry of a final, non-appealable judgment in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. On August 31, 2023, the Mesa plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay in the Mesa Action. On October 6, 2023, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay. Plaintiff filed his reply on October 17, 2023. On December 27, 2023, the parties filed a letter informing the Court that the Second Consolidated Derivative Action had been stayed for a period of six months and asked the Court to stay further proceedings in the Mesa Action until expiration of that stay.
44
On December 7, 2022, the Acosta Action was filed. On February 6, 2023, defendants accepted service of the complaint and summons in the Acosta Action. On March 9, 2023, the court entered an order granting the parties’ request to stay the Acosta Action pending the entry of a final, non-appealable judgment in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. On October 13, 2023, the parties filed, and the Delaware Court entered, a stipulated order providing that (i) if the Delaware Court declines to lift the stay in the Mesa Action, the Acosta Action will also remain stayed, and (ii) if the Delaware Court lifts the stay in the Mesa Action, the stay in the Acosta Action will also be lifted.
On April 17, 2023, the Needelman Action was filed. On July 12, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to stay the Needelman Action pending the Maryland Court’s decision on the motion to dismiss in the Second Consolidated Derivative Action. The court entered that order on July 17, 2023.
On November 30, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the Kirst and Needelman Actions. On December 14, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation (i) extending the plaintiffs’ deadline to file a consolidated complaint until January 29, 2024, and (ii) otherwise staying all other proceedings in the case (including the defendants’ deadline to respond to the consolidated complaint) until February 12, 2024. The stipulation entered by the court instructs the parties to discuss whether the stay should be further extended in light of the then-current status of the SLC’s investigation. On May 3, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On May 14, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation staying the action until June 6, 2024. On July 12, 2024, the court entered an order staying the action until August 5, 2024.
We are also involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these other legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, we do not expect the resolution of these other legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.