Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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 December 31, 2013, we recorded $71.6 million as contingent consideration, with $28.0 million recorded within Accrued expenses and $43.6 million recorded within Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Refer to Note 5.
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, 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, and on or around October 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint. 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 PROLOR’s Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, that PROLOR and its Board of Directors failed to disclose material information to PROLOR’s stockholders, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, including increased consideration to PROLOR’s stockholders, equitable relief, including, among other things, rescission of the Merger Agreement along with rescissionary damages, and an award of all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 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 December 31, 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with Adrian Goldstein, M.D., a former employee of OPKO Lab, resolving all claims between OPKO Lab and Dr. Goldstein. On November 27, 2012, Dr. Goldstein had filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and alleged breach of contract against OPKO Lab in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, asserting that OPKO Lab breached his employment agreement and owed him additional compensation and further compensation for the value of OPKO Lab under a “compensation for sale” provision set forth in his employment agreement. The settlement did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.
In October 2012, we received a letter from counsel to Optos, Inc., (“Optos”) making certain indemnity claims against us in connection with the sale of our ophthalmic instrumentation business. In October 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with Optos that resulted in payments to us and resolved all pending claims between the parties, including a termination of future royalty obligations from Optos to us. 
In July 2012, OPKO Lab 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 OPKO Lab to the Medicare program. OPKO Lab believes that its billing practices were appropriate and it is following the appeal process set forth by Medicare. OPKO Lab 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.