Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

v2.4.0.8
Commitments and Contingencies
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
In connection with our acquisitions of CURNA, OPKO Diagnostics, FineTech, Farmadiet, and Cytochroma, we agreed to pay future consideration to the sellers upon the achievement of certain events. As a result, as of June 30, 2013 , we recorded $68.9 million as contingent consideration, with $5.3 million recorded within Accrued expenses and $63.6 million recorded within Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Refer to Note 4.
On April 29, 2013, we were named in a putative class action filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada against PROLOR Biotech, Inc. (“PROLOR”), the members of the PROLOR Board of Directors, individually (including Drs. Frost and Hsiao and Steven Rubin), and the Company. From May 1, 2013 through May 6, 2013, we were named in an additional five putative class actions suits filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada against the same defendants. On July 17, 2013, these suits were consolidated, for all purposes, into an amended class action complaint as part of the In re PROLOR Biotech, Inc. Shareholders' Litigation (Case No. A-13-680860-B). The lawsuit is brought by purported holders of PROLOR's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of PROLOR's stockholders, asserting claims that (i) PROLOR's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among other things, purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, (ii) PROLOR and its Board of Directors failed to disclose material information concerning the proposed merger, and (iii) the Company aided and abetted PROLOR's directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuit seeks various damages, an award of all costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as certain equitable relief, including enjoining consummation of the merger and, alternatively, rescinding the merger in the event it is consummated. The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend the actions. It is too early to assess the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome or the loss or range of loss, if any.
In November 2012, Adrian Goldstein, M.D., a former employee of OURLab, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and alleged breach of contract against OURLab in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. Dr. Goldstein asserts in his complaint that OURLab breached his employment agreement and owes him additional compensation and further compensation for the value of OURLab under a “compensation for sale” provision set forth in his employment agreement. Dr. Goldstein seeks recovery of compensatory damages not to exceed $20 million, plus his attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. OURLab believes this action is without merit and is vigorously defending against plaintiff’s claims. It is too early to assess the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome or the loss or range of loss, if any.
In October 2012, we received a letter from counsel to Optos, Inc., making certain indemnity claims against us in connection with the sale of our ophthalmic instrumentation business. It is too early to assess the likelihood of litigation in this matter or the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome. However, we do not currently believe this matter will have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.
In July 2012, OURLab received a letter from AdvanceMed Corporation (“AdvanceMed”) regarding a post-payment review conducted by AdvanceMed (the “Post-Payment Review Letter”). The Post-Payment Review Letter originated with a post payment review audit by AdvanceMed of 183 claims submitted by OURLab to the Medicare program. OURLab believes that its billing practices were appropriate and it is following the appeal process set forth by Medicare. OURLab received a partially favorable determination, which reduced the amount of the alleged overpayment, and it continues to appeal the remaining alleged overpayments. No assurances can be given about the outcome of the appeal.
We are a party to other litigation in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that any such litigation will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.
We expect to incur substantial losses as we continue the development of our product candidates, continue our other research and development activities, and establish a sales and marketing infrastructure in anticipation of the commercialization of our diagnostic and pharmaceutical product candidates. We currently have limited commercialization capabilities, and it is possible that we may never successfully commercialize any of our diagnostic and pharmaceutical product candidates. We do not currently generate revenue from any of our diagnostic and pharmaceutical product candidates. Our research and development activities are budgeted to expand over a period of time and will require further resources if we are to be successful. As a result, we believe that our operating losses are likely to be substantial over the next several years. We may need to obtain additional funds to further develop our research and development programs, and there can be no assurance that additional capital will be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.