SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 10-K

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. From time to time and in the ordinary course of business, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Company") and any of its subsidiaries may be subject to various claims, charges and litigation. Parent and any of its subsidiaries may be required to file infringement claims against third parties for the infringement of our patents. 70 Table of Contents Oxtellar XR ® Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., et al., C.A. No. 20-cv-7870 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug makers Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Apotex”) dated May 13, 2020 directed to nine of its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,722,898; 7,910,131; 8,617,600; 8,821,930; 9,119,791; 9,351,975; 9,370,525; 9,855,278; and 10,220,042 generally cover once-a-day oxcarbazepine formulations and methods of treating seizures using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book lists all nine of the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents as expiring on April 13, 2027. On June 26, 2020, the Company filed a lawsuit against Apotex alleging infringement of the Company’s nine patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Apotex infringed the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its June 26, 2020 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Apotex’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Apotex’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On September 4, 2020, Apotex answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Apotex also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement for the nine Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents. On October 30, 2020, the Company filed its Reply, denying the substantive allegations of Apotex’s Counterclaims. On January 27, 2022, the Court issued an Order staying all litigation proceedings and administratively terminated the action until the stay is lifted. As of the date of this submission, this case remains administratively terminated. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:22-cv-00322-FLW-TJB (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug makers Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Apotex”) dated December 10, 2021 directed to one of its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent No. 11,166,960 generally covers once-a-day oxcarbazepine formulations and methods of treating seizures using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book lists U.S. Patent No. 11,166,960 as expiring on April 13, 2027. On January 24, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit against Apotex alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,166,960. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Apotex infringed the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 11,166,960. On January 27, 2022, in related Civil Action No. 20-cv-7870 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.), the Court issued an Order staying all litigation proceedings and administratively terminated that related action until the stay is lifted. That Order further indicated that this action, i.e., Civil Action No. 22-cv-00322 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.), will also be stayed. As of the date of this submission, this case remains administratively terminated. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. RiconPharma LLC, et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-12133 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker RiconPharma LLC dated April 20, 2021 directed to nine of its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,722,898; 7,910,131; 8,617,600; 8,821,930; 9,119,791; 9,351,975; 9,370,525; 9,855,278; and 10,220,042 generally cover once-a-day oxcarbazepine formulations and methods of treating seizures using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book lists all nine of the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents as expiring on April 13, 2027. On June 3, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against RiconPharma LLC and Ingenus Pharmaceuticals, LLC (collectively, “Ricon”) alleging infringement of the Company’s nine Oxtellar XR® patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Ricon infringed the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its June 3, 2021 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Ricon’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Ricon’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On August 30, 2021, Ricon answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Ricon also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non‑infringement for the nine Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus filed a motion to strike the jury demand in Ricon’s answer. On December 6, 2021, the Court signed an Order withdrawing the Jury demand from Ricon’s answer. On December 13, 2021, Ricon filed an amended Answer to Supernus’s Complaint. On December 15, 2021, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Ricon’s Counterclaims. Following the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a case schedule that provides for the Final Pretrial Order being submitted on June 9, 2023, and a trial in July 2023. Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission. 71 Table of Contents Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-cv-2164 (RMB)(JS) (D.N.J.) The Company received a second Paragraph IV Notice Letter directed to its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book Patent Nos. 7,722,898; 7,910,131; 8,617,600; 8,821,930; 9,119,791; 9,351,975; and 9,370,525 from generic drug maker TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on February 16, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and TWi International LLC (collectively “TWi”) alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,722,898; 7,910,131; 8,617,600; 8,821,930; 9,119,791; 9,351,975; and 9,370,525. TWi filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s March 31, 2017 Complaint on May 10, 2017. On May 11, 2017, the district court administratively terminated TWi’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules and Procedures. On May 19, 2017, the district court “administratively terminate[d] this matter pending this Court’s decision in the First TWi Action [concerning United States Patent Nos. 7,722,898, 7,910,131, 8,617,600, and 8,821,930].” As of the date of this submission. Civil Action No. 17-2164 (RMB)(JS) (D.N.J.) remains administratively terminated. Trokendi XR ® Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ajanta Pharma Limited, et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-6964 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Ajanta Pharma Limited dated February 10, 2021 directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No. 8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028 and United States Patent Nos. 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027. On March 26, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Ajanta Pharma Limited and Ajanta Pharma USA Inc. (collectively “Ajanta”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Ajanta infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its March 26, 2021 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Ajanta’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Ajanta’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On June 7, 2021, Ajanta answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Ajanta also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non‑infringement and invalidity for the Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. On June 28, 2021, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Ajanta’s Counterclaims. Following the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a case schedule. On December 17, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit and the lawsuit against Torrent, discussed in Section VI, below, under which this lawsuit is the lead case and the 30 month stay preventing the FDA from approving Ajanta’s ANDA was extended to December 16, 2023. Under the amended scheduling order, the Final Pretrial Conference is set for April 24, 2023. A trial date has not been set. Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-14268 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. dated June 15, 2021 directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No. 8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028 and United States Patent Nos. 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027. On July 28, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Torrent”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Torrent infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its July 28, 2021 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Torrent’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Torrent’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On September 29, 2021, Torrent answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Torrent also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non‑infringement for the Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. On November 3, 2021, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Torrent’s Counterclaims. Following the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a case schedule. On December 17, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit with the lawsuit against Ajanta, discussed in Section V, above, 72 Table of Contents under which the Ajanta lawsuit is the lead case. Under the amended scheduling order, the Final Pretrial Conference is set for April 24, 2023. A trial date has not been set. Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lupin Limited, et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-1293 (MN) (D. Del.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Lupin Limited dated July 29, 2021 directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No. 8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028 and United States Patent Nos. 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027. On September 10, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Lupin Limited, Lupin Atlantis Holdings S.A., Nanomi B.V., Lupin Inc., and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware—alleges, inter alia, that Lupin infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its September 10, 2021 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Lupin’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Lupin’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On December 20, 2021, Lupin answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Lupin also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non‑infringement and invalidity for the Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. On January 10, 2022, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Lupin’s Counterclaims. On February 11, 2022, the Court instructed the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order that would provide for a trial that begins on June 20, 2023. As of the date of this submission. the date for the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference has not been set. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-17104 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. dated August 5, 2021 directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No. 8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028 and United States Patent Nos. 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027. On September 17, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively, “Zydus”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Zydus infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its September 17, 2021 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Zydus’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Zydus’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. The August 5, 2021 Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. concerns Zydus’s proposed generic equivalent of the 200 mg strength of Trokendi XR®. [1] The August 5, 2021 Paragraph IV Notice Letter referenced herein does not concern the same ANDA as the one that was at issue in the previous lawsuit. On December 28, 2021, Zydus answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. As of the date of this submission, the date for the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference has not been set and the Court has not issued a case schedule. ___________________ [1] Previously, the Company was in a lawsuit against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited concerning an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for Zydus’s proposed generic equivalents of the 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg strengths of Trokendi XR®. A settlement agreement was entered into between the Company and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited concerning the previous lawsuit. See https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1356576/000110465917031191/a17-10293_1ex10d1.htm. XADAGO ® On June 10, 2021, Newron Pharmaceuticals S.p.A. ("Newron"), Zambon S.p.A. ("Zambon") and Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company"), through its subsidiary MDD US Operations, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), initiated litigation against generic drug makers Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., MSN Laboratories Private Limited ("MSN"), Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd, Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., RK Pharma, Inc. and Zenara Pharma Private Limited (collectively, "Defendants") for infringement of three FDA Orange Book patents covering XADAGO®, Parent's once-daily 73 Table of Contents product indicated as adjunctive treatment to levodopa/carbidopa in patients with Parkinson's Disease experiencing "off" episodes. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,076,515, 8,278,485 and 8,283,380 (collectively, the "XADAGO Patents") cover the pharmaceutical formulation of and methods of treatment with safinamide. The XADAGO Patents expire between June 2027 and March 2031. The Company has a license agreement with Zambon, Newron's partner, related to the XADAGO Patents, and as a new chemical entity, XADAGO is under the 5-year FDA exclusivity period that expires on March 21, 2022. The Complaint – filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware – alleges that the Defendants infringed the XADAGO Patents by submitting to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking to market a generic version of XADAGO prior to the expiration of the patents. Filing the Complaint within 45 days of receiving each of the Defendants' Paragraph IV notice letters entitles the Plaintiffs to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving the Defendants' ANDAs for 30 months from the date of the Plaintiffs' receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letters. The parties agreed on a case schedule. Fact discovery is ongoing. A trial has been set for January 8, 2024. Adamas Litigation In November 2012, Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Adamas) granted Forest Laboratories Holdings Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Allergan plc (Forest), an exclusive license to certain of Adamas's intellectual property rights relating to human therapeutics containing memantine in the United States. Under the terms of that license agreement, Forest has the right to enforce such intellectual property rights which are related to its right to market and sell Namzaric and NAMENDA XR for the treatment of moderate to severe dementia related to Alzheimer's disease. Adamas has a right to participate in, but not control, such enforcement actions by Forest. Since 2018 multiple generic companies have launched generic versions of NAMENDA XR. A number of companies have submitted ANDAs including one or more certifications pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(iv) to the FDA requesting approval to manufacture and market generic versions of Namzaric, on which Adamas became entitled to receive royalties from Forest beginning in May 2020. Adamas and Forest have settled with all such Namzaric ANDA filers, including all first filers on all the available dosage forms of Namzaric. Subject to those agreements, the earliest date on which any of these agreements grant a license to market a Namzaric ANDA filer's generic version of Namzaric is January 1, 2025 (or earlier in certain circumstances). Alternatively, the Namzaric ANDA filers with the earliest date have the option to launch an authorized generic version of Namzaric beginning on January 1, 2026 instead of launching their own generic version of Namzaric on January 1, 2025. Adamas and Forest intend to continue to enforce the patents associated with Namzaric. On April 1, 2019, Adamas was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-03018-JCS) against it and several Allergan entities alleging violations of federal and state false claims acts (FCA) in connection with the commercialization of NAMENDA XR and Namzaric by Allergan. The lawsuit is a qui tam complaint brought by a named individual, Zachary Silbersher, asserting rights of the Federal government and various state governments. The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2018 under seal, and Adamas became aware of the lawsuit when it was served. The complaint alleges that patents held by Allergan and Adamas covering NAMENDA XR and Namzaric were procured through fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that these patents were asserted against potential generic manufacturers of NAMENDA XR and Namzaric to prevent the generic manufacturers from entering the market, thereby wrongfully excluding generic competition resulting in artificially high price being charged to government payors. Adamas's patents in question were licensed exclusively to Forest. The complaint includes a claim for damages of "potentially more than $2.5 billion dollars," treble damages and statutory penalties. To date the federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. This case is currently stayed pending Adamas's and Allergan's interlocutory appeal of the District Court's December 11, 2020 order denying Adamas's and Allergan's motion to dismiss the complaint. The appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 21-80005). Argument was held on January 10, 2022 and no decision has been reached as of the date of this filing. On December 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Ali Zaidi against Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers in federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:19-cv-08051). This lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers. On October 8, 2021, the presiding judge dismissed the litigation, and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their second amended class action complaint. On December 10, 2021, Adamas filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss remains pending. On March 16, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by Patrick Van Camp in federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:20-cv-01815) naming Adamas and certain of Adamas's current and former directors and officers 74 Table of Contents as defendants. This lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by certain of Adamas's current and former directors and officers. Adamas is named as a nominal defendant only. On April 6, 2020, another, virtually identical, shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by James Druzbik in federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:20-cv-02320) naming Adamas and certain of Adamas's current and former directors and officers as defendants. This lawsuit contains the same allegations, claims, and defendants as the first derivative action. Adamas is named as a nominal defendant only. In all of these actions, Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. These actions are ongoing. On October 26, 2021, Elaine Wang, a purported stockholder of Adamas, filed a complaint for violations of federal securities laws in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:21-cv-8742) challenging the disclosures made in connection with the acquisition of Adamas by Parent. The complaint names each of Adamas’s directors as a defendant and alleges that the disclosures in the solicitation statement filed on October 25, 2021 were materially false and misleading under Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act. A second lawsuit by purported stockholder, Jeffrey D. Justice II, was filed on October 28, 2021 in the same court (Case No. 1:21-cv-08818) against the same defendants with similar claims. A third lawsuit by purported stockholder, Stourbridge Investments LLC, was filed on October 29, 2021 in the same court (Case No. 1:21-cv-08856) against the same defendants with similar claims. A fourth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Tran Tran, was filed on October 29, 2021 in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-08417) also against the same defendants and with similar claims. A fifth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Kelly Cook, was filed on November 2, 2021 in the Easter District of New York (Case No. 1:21-cv-06102) against the same defendants with similar claims. A sixth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Catherine Coffman, was filed on November 5, 2021 in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-08646) against the same defendants with similar claims. A seventh lawsuit by purported stockholder, Michael Kent, was filed on November 5, 2021 in the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:21-cv-01579) against the same defendants with similar claims. An eighth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Marc Waterman, was filed on November 8, 2021 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:21-cv-04912) against the same defendants with similar claims. A ninth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Lori Vereker, was filed on November 10, 2021 in the Southern District of New York (Case No 1:21-cv-09319) against the same defendants with similar claims. A tenth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Michael McDevitt, was filed on November 11, 2021 in the Southern District of New York (Case No 1:21-cv-09343) against the same defendants with similar claims. In all of these actions, Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, unspecified costs, and other relief. These actions have all been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. Adamas believes it has strong factual and legal defenses to all actions and intends to defend itself vigorously. ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES. Not applicable. 75 Table of Contents PART II