Print Page  Close Window


SEC Filings

10-Q
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC. filed this Form 10-Q on 05/12/2017
Entire Document
 

 

December 31, 2011 did not exceed the 162(m) Award Limit. The demand review committee further determined that the options granted to Mr. Narachi and Ms. Turner, including the portion of such awards in excess of the 162(m) Award Limit, were validly approved under the Plan, although the portion of those awards in excess of the 162(m) Award Limit does not qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m). In September 2013, the compensation committee amended the Plan, with the approval of the Company’s board of directors, to take the following actions: (1) to clarify that the 162(m) Award Limit only applies to awards or the portion thereof intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m); and (2) to confirm that the compensation committee has the authority to make awards in excess of the 162(m) Award Limit, which board action the Company refers to as the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment is deemed effective as of June 10, 2011, consistent with the authority of the compensation committee as administrator of the Plan as of that date. Any grants under the Plan in excess of the 162(m) Award Limit are not intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m).

On December 9, 2013, the same shareholder who made a demand on the board in May 2013 filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the officers and current and former members of the board of directors in the United States District Court, for the Southern District of California, captioned Turgeman v. Narachi, et al. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste and unjust enrichment based on, among other things, the alleged grant of stock options to certain officers in excess of the 162(m) Award Limit, repricing stock options allegedly in violation of the Company’s equity incentive plan, the board of directors’ conduct in responding to the May 2013 shareholder demand, and making allegedly false and misleading statements. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, declaratory relief, corporate governance reforms, rescission of certain stock option awards, rescission of the Plan Amendment, injunctive relief, damages, restitution, disgorgement and attorney’s fees. On July 23, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Turgeman complaint. On March 9, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss with thirty days leave to amend. An amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2015. The amended complaint asserts the same derivative claims as the original complaint and asserts a putative claim on behalf of plaintiff and the Company’s shareholders for breach of contract for alleged violations of the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan. On May 8, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claim with prejudice but granting plaintiff twenty-one days leave to amend the breach of contract claim.  On April 21, 2017, plaintiffs and defendants stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of the breach of contract claim.  On April 24, 2017, the court entered judgment dismissing the entire action with prejudice.

On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers in the United States District Court, for the Southern District of California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz v. Orexigen, et al ., asserting substantially similar claims. On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading statements regarding the interim results and termination of the Light Study. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys’ fees and equitable or injunctive relief. On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On May 19, 2016, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing portions of the consolidated complaint with prejudice and portions without prejudice. The Court granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint with respect to those portions not dismissed with prejudice. On June 16, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a notice of intent not to file an amended complaint but to proceed directly to an appeal of the Court’s decision dismissing the consolidated complaint. As a result, the court entered judgment dismissing the consolidated complaint with prejudice on June 27, 2016. Lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 26, 2016.  The appeal has been fully briefed. No hearing date has been set. Although management believes that this appeal lacks merit and intends to defend against it vigorously, there are uncertainties inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the outcome. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than ongoing attorney’s fees.

On June 3, 2016, plaintiff Ben Wilkin, a shareholder who had previously made a shareholder demand to inspect certain books and records of the Company, filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and members of the board of directors in the Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Wilkin v. Narachi, et al. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets based on essentially the same set of facts underlying the Colley, Stefanko and Yantz consolidated class action. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, damages, corporate governance reforms, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and attorney’s fees. Orexigen and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 31, 2016, asserting that plaintiff failed to plead demand futility and otherwise failed to state a claim.  Instead of opposing the motion to dismiss, on January 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Chancery Rule 15(aaa).  The amended complaint asserts nearly identical allegations and claims as the original complaint.  Orexigen and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 27, 2017.  Management believes that the claims lack merit and intends to defend against them

24