COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Leases The majority of the Company's leases as of March 31, 2025 are classified as operating leases. Leases with an initial term of twelve months or less are not recorded on the balance sheet, and the Company does not separate lease and non-lease components of contracts. The Company’s lease agreements do not provide for determination of the interest rate implicit in the lease. Therefore, the Company used a benchmark approach to derive an appropriate incremental borrowing rate. The Company’s incremental borrowing rate is the rate of interest that the lessee would have to pay to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term an amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment. The Company benchmarked itself against other companies of similar credit ratings and comparable quality and derived an incremental borrowing rate, which was used to discount its lease liabilities. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Operating lease ROU assets are included in other non-current assets and operating lease liabilities are included in accrued expenses and other and other non-current liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company’s lease agreements do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. In connection with the acquisition of Alimera, the Company acquired operating leases for office space in Alpharetta, Georgia, and has a remaining term of approximately five years.The Company also entered into a new lease agreement in Princeton, New Jersey, for office space which is expected to have a commencement date during Q2 2025, which will have a lease term of 10 years. Finance Leases In connection with the acquisition of Alimera, the Company acquired finance leases primarily consisting of automobiles. The automobiles are capitalized at the lesser of fair market value or the present value of the minimum lease payments at the inception of the leases using the Company’s incremental borrowing rate. The Company’s finance lease agreements do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. Finance lease ROU assets are included in other non-current assets, specifically in Property and equipment, net, and finance lease liabilities are included in accrued expenses and other and other non-current liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. Government Regulation The Company's products and facilities are subject to regulation by a number of federal and state governmental agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the FDA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (“CDSCO”), The Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”), and India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (“MoHFW”). The FDA, in particular, maintains oversight of the formulation, manufacture, distribution, packaging, and labeling of all of ANI's products. The DEA and NCB maintain oversight over products that are considered controlled substances. Unapproved Products Four products, Esterified Estrogens and Methyltestosterone (“EEMT”), Opium Tincture, Thyroid Tablets, and Hyoscyamine are sold without approved NDAs or ANDAs. If the FDA took enforcement action against the Company, the Company may be required to seek FDA approval for the group of products or withdraw them from the market. During the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, net revenues from commercial sales of these products totaled $5.5 million and $4.1 million, respectively. On December 27, 2023, the Company acquired from Alvogen, Inc. the rights to Hyoscyamine for total cash consideration of $2.0 million, which product was launched commercially in February 2024. Contract manufacturing revenues for Hyoscyamine were $0 and less than $0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. Legal proceedings The Company is involved, and from time to time may become involved, in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries, investigations, government reimbursement related actions and litigation. These matters are complex and subject to significant uncertainties. While the Company believes that it has valid claims and/or defenses in the litigation and other matters described below, litigation is inherently unpredictable, particularly where the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate or when the proceedings, investigations or inquiries are in the early stages, and the outcome of the proceedings could result in losses, including substantial damages, fines, civil or criminal penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. The Company intends to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these matters, as appropriate; however, from time to time, the Company may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that it believes are in the Company's best interests. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition. Unless otherwise disclosed, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the matter or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible material losses. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies to the extent it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. From time to time, the Company may also be involved in other pending proceedings for which, in our opinion based upon facts and circumstances known at the time, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to our results, and therefore remain undisclosed. If and when any reasonably possible losses associated with the resolution of such other pending proceedings, in our opinion, become material, the Company will disclose such matters. Furthermore, like many pharmaceutical manufacturers, the Company is periodically exposed to product liability claims. The prevalence of these claims could limit our coverage under future insurance policies or cause those policies to become more expensive, which could harm our business, financial condition, and operating results. Recent trends in the product liability and director and officer insurance markets is to exclude matters related to certain classes of drugs. Our policies have been subject to such exclusions which place further potential risk of financial loss on us. Legal fees for litigation-related matters are expensed as incurred and included in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations under the selling, general, and administrative expense line item. Commercial Litigation On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic. On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints were substantively identical. The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that, beginning in 2012, Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the Company’s January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen. Under the terms of the 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement, Amerigen agreed to indemnify ANI for certain liabilities relating to Bystolic, including liabilities that arose prior to closing of the asset purchase. The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other defendants and the Company. The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 23, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, on that date. The newly amended complaints contained substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the newly amended complaints. After full briefing and oral argument, on February 21, 2023, the court granted the Company and the defendants’ motion to dismiss all actions with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit. On May 13, 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. On March 4, 2024, ANI commenced a civil action against CG Oncology, Inc. f/k/a Cold Genesys, Inc. (“CG Oncology”) in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (“Delaware Action”). ANI’s complaint alleges that, under an Assignment and Technology Transfer Agreement dated as of November 15, 2010 (the “November 2010 Agreement”), CG Oncology is liable to pay ANI a running royalty of 5% of the worldwide net sales of cretostimogene made by CG Oncology or any affiliate or sublicensee thereof; and that in February 2024, CG Oncology wrongfully repudiated its royalty obligation to ANI. On April 2, 2024, CG Oncology filed an answer and counterclaim (the “CGON Answer and Counterclaim”) and concurrently moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment (the “Motion for Summary Judgment”). CG Oncology’s Motion for Summary Judgment sought judgment declaring that the November 2010 Agreement does not “oblige CGON to pay royalties after expiration of the latest-running assigned patent.” The CGON Answer and Counterclaim also seeks judgment awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages on counterclaims for alleged breach of the November 2010 Agreement and for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and Delaware state law. On April 25, 2024, ANI filed a reply to CG Oncology’s counterclaims, denying any liability to CG Oncology and asserting additional counterclaims against CG Oncology (“Reply Counterclaims”) for alleged breach of the November 2010 Agreement and, in the alternative, for unjust enrichment. ANI’s Reply Counterclaims seek judgment (i) declaring that, under Section 3.3 of the November 2010 Agreement, CG Oncology is contractually obligated to pay ANI 5% of the worldwide net sales of cretostimogene made by CG Oncology or any affiliate or sublicensee thereof; (ii) dismissing CG Oncology’s counterclaims with prejudice; (iii) awarding ANI compensatory damages as provided by law, including damages grounded in restitution and unjust enrichment; (iv) in the event of a judgment in ANI’s favor on ANI’s fourth counterclaim for unjust enrichment, ordering CG Oncology to re-transfer to ANI ownership of all assets that ANI sold to CG Oncology under the November 2010 Agreement, including, without limitation, all data and documentation comprising IND 12154; and (v) in the event of a judgment in ANI’s favor on ANI’s fourth counterclaim for unjust enrichment, imposing a constructive trust on all fruits of CG0070-related assets that ANI sold to CG Oncology under the November 2010 Agreement including, without limitation, all data and documentation comprising IND 12154 and any other IND that CG Oncology may have for CG0070. On May 15, 2024, CG Oncology filed a reply to ANI’s counterclaims, denying any liability to ANI and generally maintaining the positions taken in the CGON Answer and Counterclaim. On November 18, 2024, the court denied CG Oncology's Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 4, 2024, the court scheduled the case for jury trial to commence July 21, 2025. ANI intends to pursue this matter vigorously. On March 5, 2024, a complaint was filed against ANI by Acella Pharmaceuticals, LLC, in the United States District Court of Minnesota, asserting, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair trade practices and false advertising under Minnesota law, relating to ANI’s natural desiccated thyroid tablets USP. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, actual and consequential damages, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 16, 2024, ANI filed an answer to Acella’s complaint, denying all claims, and asserting certain affirmative defenses, and counterclaims against Acella for false advertising of its thyroid product marketed as NP Thyroid® Tablets, under the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition and unfair and deceptive trade practices and false advertising under Minnesota and Georgia law. ANI seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 17, 2024, Acella filed a motion to dismiss ANI’s counterclaims. On June 7, 2024, ANI filed an amended answer to Acella’s complaint and counterclaims. Acella filed a motion to dismiss ANI’s amended counterclaims on July 31, 2024. A hearing was held on September 11, 2024 on Acella’s motion to dismiss. On December 18, 2024, the court issued an order denying Acella's motion. The parties have been unable to reach a settlement and have agreed to an extension for fact discovery until July 1, 2025. Trial is currently scheduled to begin as early as May 2026. ANI disputes any liability in this matter and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Patent Litigation On November 21, 2023, a complaint was filed against Novitium and certain other defendants in the case of Harmony Biosciences, LLC, Bioprojet Societe Civile de Recherche and Bioprojet Pharma SAS v. AET Pharma US, Inc., Annora Pharma Private Limited, Novitium Pharma LLC, Zenara Pharma Private Limited and Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting, among other things, that Novitium’s proposed pitolisant hydrochloride drug product, which is subject to Novitium’s Abbreviated New Drug Application, infringes certain U.S. patents owned by the plaintiffs. The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 29, 2024, Novitium filed its answer, denying all allegations and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity. On February 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed their answer, denying Novitium’s counterclaims and asserting certain affirmative defenses against Novitium. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated Novitium’s case and two other cases brought by plaintiffs against Lupin Limited et al, and MSN Pharms. Inc. et al., into one consolidated matter filed in C.A. No. 23-1286-JLH. The case is currently in discovery. The court set a trial date for February 2026. Novitium disputes any liability in this matter. On December 27, 2024, a complaint was filed against Novitium by Athena Bioscience, LLC (“Athena”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting, among other things, that Novitium’s proposed tramadol hydrochloride solution drug product, which is subject to Novitium’s Abbreviated New Drug Application, infringes certain U.S. patents owned by Athena. The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 7, 2025, Novitium filed its answer, denying all allegations and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity. Novitium disputes any liability in this matter. Ranitidine Related Litigation Federal Court Multi District Litigation ANI and Novitium were named as defendants, along with numerous other brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, retail pharmacy chains, and repackagers of ranitidine-containing products, in In re: Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation (MDL No, 2924), filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “MDL Court”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to disclose and/or concealed the alleged inherent presence of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or “NDMA”) in brand-name Zantac or generic ranitidine and the alleged associated risk of cancer. While ANI was initially a defendant, the lead plaintiff attorneys voluntarily dismissed ANI as a defendant in the Master Complaint. On July 8, 2021, the MDL Court dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the generic drug manufacturers with prejudice, on preemption grounds. The MDL Court also dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the brand manufacturers on summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the MDL Court’s dismissals to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 7, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the MDL Court’s dismissal of cases brought by third-party payors. The Eleventh Circuit raised questions in the appeals of the other cases about the finality of the MDL Court’s judgments, which were resolved in September 2023. Plaintiffs filed opening briefs on April 10, 2024 and generics defendants filed their response on July 25, 2024. ANI and Novitium dispute any liability in this matter. State Court Personal Injury Litigation ANI and Novitium have also been named as defendants in various state lawsuits. California. The pending cases in California state court naming generic ranitidine manufacturers were transferred to an existing civil case coordination docket for pretrial proceedings (JCCP) in Alameda County. On September 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed a master complaint in the JCCP alleging strict liability, negligent failure to warn and general negligence, but not naming any generic defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended master complaint on April 29, 2024 and filed a second amended master complaint on July 2, 2024. Defendants filed omnibus demurrers to the complaint. Novitium is currently named in one bellwether case (Bautista), one wave 2 case (Austin), one wave 3 case (Rodarte), three wave 5 cases, six wave 6 cases, and four wave 7 cases. The court heard arguments for the demurrers on August 22, 2024 and issued its final ruling on August 28, 2024, allowing some counts to survive. The surviving counts as to generic defendants include strict liability (manufacturing defect) and general negligence (storage and transport, failure to warn and product containers). Novitium filed its answer to the second amended master complaint on September 6, 2024. Discovery is currently ongoing. In December 2023, the Keller Postman firm filed approximately 200 individual plaintiff short form complaints that name generic defendants. Novitium is named in 29 of the short form complaints which reference the claims for the master complaint, but Novitium has not been served. ANI is not named. On February 1, 2024, the generic defendants filed an omnibus demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the Keller Postman complaints, largely on the basis of preemption. On April 23, 2024, the California court sustained the demurrer in part, dismissing all design defect claims against the generic defendants with prejudice on preemption grounds, but the court otherwise granted plaintiffs an opportunity for leave to amend their other claims against the generic defendants. Plaintiffs filed amended short form complaints on September 20, 2024 and defendants filed responses on October 6, 2024. Pleadings are now closed and discovery is currently ongoing. Pennsylvania. In September 2022, two complaints were filed naming Novitium as a defendant in Pennsylvania state court, Philadelphia County. On February 16, 2023, the Pennsylvania plaintiffs filed a consolidated long-form complaint against the generic defendants, Plaintiffs v. Actavis, et. al. Civil Action No. 1364. The long-form complaint names Novitium as a defendant. The long form complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, failure to warn, negligent storage and transportation, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, strict products liability, wrongful death and survivor actions, and loss of consortium. The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. The generic defendants filed their preliminary objections to Plaintiffs’ consolidated long-form generic complaint on March 20, 2023. The court dismissed all claims related to failure to warn/design defects on preemption grounds. The court also sustained the generics’ preliminary objections relating to the counts of strict liability-design defect and breach of implied warranty to the extent Pennsylvania substantive law applies, effectively dismissing the generic defendants from the case unless and until a non-resident plaintiff names a generic in a short form complaint. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the generics, including Novitium, all filed answers to the long form complaint in June 2023. In January 2024, plaintiffs filed short form complaints naming generic defendants, including naming Novitium in one complaint. Generic defendants filed joint preliminary objections to the short form complaints based on preemption. The deadline for filing responses to these objections has passed. In addition, Novitium was not named in any amended short form complaint filed by plaintiffs. ANI and Novitium dispute any liability in these matters.

The majority of the Company's leases as of March 31, 2025 are classified as operating leases. Leases with an initial term of twelve months or less are not recorded on the balance sheet, and the Company does not separate lease and non-lease components of contracts. The Company’s lease agreements do not provide for determination of the interest rate implicit in the lease. Therefore, the Company used a benchmark approach to derive an appropriate incremental borrowing rate. The Company’s incremental borrowing rate is the rate of interest that the lessee would have to pay to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term an amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment. The Company benchmarked itself against other companies of similar credit ratings and comparable quality and derived an incremental borrowing rate, which was used to discount its lease liabilities. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Operating lease ROU assets are included in other non-current assets and operating lease liabilities are included in accrued expenses and other and other non-current liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company’s lease agreements do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants.

In connection with the acquisition of Alimera, the Company acquired finance leases primarily consisting of automobiles. The automobiles are capitalized at the lesser of fair market value or the present value of the minimum lease payments at the inception of the leases using the Company’s incremental borrowing rate. The Company’s finance lease agreements do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. Finance lease ROU assets are included in other non-current assets, specifically in Property and equipment, net, and finance lease liabilities are included in accrued expenses and other and other non-current liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.

The Company's products and facilities are subject to regulation by a number of federal and state governmental agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the FDA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (“CDSCO”), The Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”), and India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (“MoHFW”). The FDA, in particular, maintains oversight of the formulation, manufacture, distribution, packaging, and labeling of all of ANI's products. The DEA and NCB maintain oversight over products that are considered controlled substances.

The Company is involved, and from time to time may become involved, in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries, investigations, government reimbursement related actions and litigation. These matters are complex and subject to significant uncertainties. While the Company believes that it has valid claims and/or defenses in the litigation and other matters described below, litigation is inherently unpredictable, particularly where the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate or when the proceedings, investigations or inquiries are in the early stages, and the outcome of the proceedings could result in losses, including substantial damages, fines, civil or criminal penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. The Company intends to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these matters, as appropriate; however, from time to time, the Company may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that it believes are in the Company's best interests. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition.

On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic. On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints were substantively identical. The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that, beginning in 2012, Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the Company’s January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen. Under the terms of the 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement, Amerigen agreed to indemnify ANI for certain liabilities relating to Bystolic, including liabilities that arose prior to closing of the asset purchase. The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other defendants and the Company. The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 23, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, on that date. The newly amended complaints contained substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the newly amended complaints. After full briefing and oral argument, on February 21, 2023, the court granted the Company and the defendants’ motion to dismiss all actions with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit. On May 13, 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.

On March 4, 2024, ANI commenced a civil action against CG Oncology, Inc. f/k/a Cold Genesys, Inc. (“CG Oncology”) in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (“Delaware Action”). ANI’s complaint alleges that, under an Assignment and Technology Transfer Agreement dated as of November 15, 2010 (the “November 2010 Agreement”), CG Oncology is liable to pay ANI a running royalty of 5% of the worldwide net sales of cretostimogene made by CG Oncology or any affiliate or sublicensee thereof; and that in February 2024, CG Oncology wrongfully repudiated its royalty obligation to ANI. On April 2, 2024, CG Oncology filed an answer and counterclaim (the “CGON Answer and Counterclaim”) and concurrently moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment (the “Motion for Summary Judgment”). CG Oncology’s Motion for Summary Judgment sought judgment declaring that the November 2010 Agreement does not “oblige CGON to pay royalties after expiration of the latest-running assigned patent.” The CGON Answer and Counterclaim also seeks judgment awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages on counterclaims for alleged breach of the November 2010 Agreement and for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and Delaware state law. On April 25, 2024, ANI filed a reply to CG Oncology’s counterclaims, denying any liability to CG Oncology and asserting additional counterclaims against CG Oncology (“Reply Counterclaims”) for alleged breach of the November 2010 Agreement and, in the alternative, for unjust enrichment. ANI’s Reply Counterclaims seek judgment (i) declaring that, under Section 3.3 of the November 2010 Agreement, CG Oncology is contractually obligated to pay ANI 5% of the worldwide net sales of cretostimogene made by CG Oncology or any affiliate or sublicensee thereof; (ii) dismissing CG Oncology’s counterclaims with prejudice; (iii) awarding ANI compensatory damages as provided by law, including damages grounded in restitution and unjust enrichment; (iv) in the event of a judgment in ANI’s favor on ANI’s fourth counterclaim for unjust enrichment, ordering CG Oncology to re-transfer to ANI ownership of all assets that ANI sold to CG Oncology under the November 2010 Agreement, including, without limitation, all data and documentation comprising IND 12154; and (v) in the event of a judgment in ANI’s favor on ANI’s fourth counterclaim for unjust enrichment, imposing a constructive trust on all fruits of CG0070-related assets that ANI sold to CG Oncology under the November 2010 Agreement including, without limitation, all data and documentation comprising IND 12154 and any other IND that CG Oncology may have for CG0070. On May 15, 2024, CG Oncology filed a reply to ANI’s counterclaims, denying any liability to ANI and generally maintaining the positions taken in the CGON Answer and Counterclaim. On November 18, 2024, the court denied CG Oncology's Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 4, 2024, the court scheduled the case for jury trial to commence July 21, 2025. ANI intends to pursue this matter vigorously.

On March 5, 2024, a complaint was filed against ANI by Acella Pharmaceuticals, LLC, in the United States District Court of Minnesota, asserting, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair trade practices and false advertising under Minnesota law, relating to ANI’s natural desiccated thyroid tablets USP. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, actual and consequential damages, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 16, 2024, ANI filed an answer to Acella’s complaint, denying all claims, and asserting certain affirmative defenses, and counterclaims against Acella for false advertising of its thyroid product marketed as NP Thyroid® Tablets, under the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition and unfair and deceptive trade practices and false advertising under Minnesota and Georgia law. ANI seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 17, 2024, Acella filed a motion to dismiss ANI’s counterclaims. On June 7, 2024, ANI filed an amended answer to Acella’s complaint and counterclaims. Acella filed a motion to dismiss ANI’s amended counterclaims on July 31, 2024. A hearing was held on September 11, 2024 on Acella’s motion to dismiss. On December 18, 2024, the court issued an order denying Acella's motion. The parties have been unable to reach a settlement and have agreed to an extension for fact discovery until July 1, 2025. Trial is currently scheduled to begin as early as May 2026. ANI disputes any liability in this matter and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On November 21, 2023, a complaint was filed against Novitium and certain other defendants in the case of Harmony Biosciences, LLC, Bioprojet Societe Civile de Recherche and Bioprojet Pharma SAS v. AET Pharma US, Inc., Annora Pharma Private Limited, Novitium Pharma LLC, Zenara Pharma Private Limited and Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting, among other things, that Novitium’s proposed pitolisant hydrochloride drug product, which is subject to Novitium’s Abbreviated New Drug Application, infringes certain U.S. patents owned by the plaintiffs. The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 29, 2024, Novitium filed its answer, denying all allegations and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity. On February 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed their answer, denying Novitium’s counterclaims and asserting certain affirmative defenses against Novitium. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated Novitium’s case and two other cases brought by plaintiffs against Lupin Limited et al, and MSN Pharms. Inc. et al., into one consolidated matter filed in C.A. No. 23-1286-JLH. The case is currently in discovery. The court set a trial date for February 2026. Novitium disputes any liability in this matter.

On December 27, 2024, a complaint was filed against Novitium by Athena Bioscience, LLC (“Athena”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting, among other things, that Novitium’s proposed tramadol hydrochloride solution drug product, which is subject to Novitium’s Abbreviated New Drug Application, infringes certain U.S. patents owned by Athena. The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 7, 2025, Novitium filed its answer, denying all allegations and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity. Novitium disputes any liability in this matter.

ANI and Novitium were named as defendants, along with numerous other brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, retail pharmacy chains, and repackagers of ranitidine-containing products, in In re: Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation (MDL No, 2924), filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “MDL Court”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to disclose and/or concealed the alleged inherent presence of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or “NDMA”) in brand-name Zantac or generic ranitidine and the alleged associated risk of cancer. While ANI was initially a defendant, the lead plaintiff attorneys voluntarily dismissed ANI as a defendant in the Master Complaint. On July 8, 2021, the MDL Court dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the generic drug manufacturers with prejudice, on preemption grounds. The MDL Court also dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the brand manufacturers on summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the MDL Court’s dismissals to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 7, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the MDL Court’s dismissal of cases brought by third-party payors. The Eleventh Circuit raised questions in the appeals of the other cases about the finality of the MDL Court’s judgments, which were resolved in September 2023. Plaintiffs filed opening briefs on April 10, 2024 and generics defendants filed their response on July 25, 2024.

California. The pending cases in California state court naming generic ranitidine manufacturers were transferred to an existing civil case coordination docket for pretrial proceedings (JCCP) in Alameda County. On September 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed a master complaint in the JCCP alleging strict liability, negligent failure to warn and general negligence, but not naming any generic defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended master complaint on April 29, 2024 and filed a second amended master complaint on July 2, 2024. Defendants filed omnibus demurrers to the complaint. Novitium is currently named in one bellwether case (Bautista), one wave 2 case (Austin), one wave 3 case (Rodarte), three wave 5 cases, six wave 6 cases, and four wave 7 cases. The court heard arguments for the demurrers on August 22, 2024 and issued its final ruling on August 28, 2024, allowing some counts to survive. The surviving counts as to generic defendants include strict liability (manufacturing defect) and general negligence (storage and transport, failure to warn and product containers). Novitium filed its answer to the second amended master complaint on September 6, 2024. Discovery is currently ongoing.

In December 2023, the Keller Postman firm filed approximately 200 individual plaintiff short form complaints that name generic defendants. Novitium is named in 29 of the short form complaints which reference the claims for the master complaint, but Novitium has not been served. ANI is not named. On February 1, 2024, the generic defendants filed an omnibus demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the Keller Postman complaints, largely on the basis of preemption. On April 23, 2024, the California court sustained the demurrer in part, dismissing all design defect claims against the generic defendants with prejudice on preemption grounds, but the court otherwise granted plaintiffs an opportunity for leave to amend their other claims against the generic defendants. Plaintiffs filed amended short form complaints on September 20, 2024 and defendants filed responses on October 6, 2024. Pleadings are now closed and discovery is currently ongoing.

Pennsylvania. In September 2022, two complaints were filed naming Novitium as a defendant in Pennsylvania state court, Philadelphia County. On February 16, 2023, the Pennsylvania plaintiffs filed a consolidated long-form complaint against the generic defendants, Plaintiffs v. Actavis, et. al. Civil Action No. 1364. The long-form complaint names Novitium as a defendant. The long form complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, failure to warn, negligent storage and transportation, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, strict products liability, wrongful death and survivor actions, and loss of consortium. The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. The generic defendants filed their preliminary objections to Plaintiffs’ consolidated long-form generic complaint on March 20, 2023. The court dismissed all claims related to failure to warn/design defects on preemption grounds. The court also sustained the generics’ preliminary objections relating to the counts of strict liability-design defect and breach of implied warranty to the extent Pennsylvania substantive law applies, effectively dismissing the generic defendants from the case unless and until a non-resident plaintiff names a generic in a short form complaint. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the generics, including Novitium, all filed answers to the long form complaint in June 2023. In January 2024, plaintiffs filed short form complaints naming generic defendants, including naming Novitium in one complaint. Generic defendants filed joint preliminary objections to the short form complaints based on preemption. The deadline for filing responses to these objections has passed. In addition, Novitium was not named in any amended short form complaint filed by plaintiffs.