(5) Commitments and Contingencies

The Company accrues a liability for legal contingencies when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. The Company reviews these accruals and adjusts them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and the Company's views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in the Company's accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For the matters referenced below, the amount of liability is not probable nor can the amount be reasonably estimated; therefore, accruals have not been made. In addition, in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for matters in which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible, the Company provides disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, however, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect.

Litigation Updates

Except as described below, there have been no material updates to our litigation as reported in the Company’s Form 10-K.

On November 30, 2020, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma for making, selling, offering to sell, and importing generic icosapent ethyl capsules in and into the U.S. in a manner that the Company alleges induced the infringement of patents covering the use of VASCEPA to reduce specified CV risk. On January 4, 2022, the District Court for the District of Delaware granted a motion to dismiss the Company's lawsuit for failure to state a claim. Thereafter, the Company appealed to the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a decision reversing the District Court, finding that the Company's allegations against Hikma plausibly state a claim alleging Hikma actively induced infringement of the asserted patents. Hikma filed a petition for rehearing en banc on August 22, 2024, which was denied on October 17, 2024. On February 14, 2025, Hikma filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the U.S., which the Supreme Court granted on January 16, 2026. Thereafter, the District Court granted a stipulation proposed by the parties to stay the District Court proceedings pending the conclusion of Hikma’s appeal before the Supreme Court. After oral argument on April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision on June 4, 2026, reversing the decision of the Federal Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings, finding that the Company failed to state a claim for active inducement, and thus, cannot withstand Hikma’s motion to dismiss.

On March 31, 2023, the Company’s former chief executive officer, Karim Mikhail, filed a complaint against the Company and certain of its affiliates in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division – Somerset County, captioned Mikhail v. Amarin Corporation, plc (Docket No. SOM-L-000366-23), concerning Mr. Mikhail’s alleged “constructive termination” from the Company. The complaint seeks unspecified damages arising from claims for breaches of his employment agreement, the Company's Executive Severance and Change of Control Plan, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On April 3, 2023, the case moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civ. No. 3:23-cv-01856). On June 30, 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss this case without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. On March 4, 2024, the District Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, permitting the parties to pursue limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. On March 20, 2025, the Company filed a new motion to dismiss for failure of plaintiff to state a claim. On November 26, 2025, the District Court granted Amarin's renewed motion to dismiss Karim Mikhail's first amended complaint in its entirety. On December 30, 2025, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. In February 2026, the court issued an order granting Amarin permission to file a motion to dismiss, adopting a briefing schedule proposed by the parties. The parties will complete briefing per the schedule and thereafter file all briefs (i.e., “bundle”) with the court in August 2026. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome.

On April 27, 2021 and February 21, 2023, Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma, respectively, filed complaints against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil action No. 21-cv-10309 and No. 23-cv-01016, alleging various antitrust violations stemming from alleged anticompetitive practices related to the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA. DRL's complaint also includes a state law tortious interference claim related to the same alleged conduct. On March 28, 2024, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Teva, filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil action No. 24-cv-04341, alleging various antitrust violations analogous to those made by Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma. Further, on June 14, 2024, Apotex, Inc., or Apotex, filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil action No. 24-cv-07041, alleging various antitrust violations analogous to those made by Dr. Reddy’s, Hikma and Teva, as well as a breach of contract claim related to the same alleged conduct. Apotex also seeks declaratory judgment regarding the applicability of a 2020 settlement agreement to its antitrust claims. In October 2024, Apotex amended its complaint to add as defendants KD Pharma-Bexbach GmbH; KD Swiss GmbH; Marine Ingredients, LLC; Innova Softgel, LLC; 03 Holding GmbH; Capiton AG. Relief sought include an unspecified amount of damages for alleged economic harm to each of Dr. Reddy’s, Hikma, Teva and Apotex, treble damages, other costs and fees and injunctive relief against the alleged violative activities. On December 9, 2025, the Company filed motions for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the claims of Teva and Apotex, based on prior settlement agreements Amarin entered into with Teva and Apotex on May 25, 2018, and June 16, 2020, respectively, relating to generic versions of Amarin’s branded product VASCEPA. On February 2, 2026, the Court denied both motions.

Antitrust litigation can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt the Company’s business. The Company cannot predict when these matters will be resolved in their entirety, their outcome or their potential impact on the Company’s business. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the remaining claims. If it is determined that the Company has violated antitrust law, the Company could be subject to significant civil fines and penalties.

In addition to the above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is from time to time involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, proceedings, and threats of litigation relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements and other matters. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with these claims, except for a $6.3 million provision.

Milestone and Supply Purchase Obligations

The Company currently has long-term supply agreements with multiple API suppliers and encapsulators. The Company is relying on these suppliers to meet current and potential future global demand for VASCEPA. Certain supply agreements require annual minimum volume commitments by the Company and certain volume shortfalls may require payments for such shortfalls.

These agreements include requirements for the suppliers to meet certain product specifications and qualify their materials and facilities with applicable regulatory authorities, including the U.S. FDA. The Company has incurred certain costs associated with the qualification of product produced by these suppliers.

The Company continues to negotiate with its contract suppliers to better align its supply arrangements with current and anticipated global demand. As of June 30, 2026, the Company has a total of approximately $42.8 million in future contractual purchase obligations as well as $96.0 million of future purchase obligations contingent on certain suppliers obtaining regulatory approval.

Under the Laxdale agreement, upon receipt of a marketing approval in Europe for a further indication of VASCEPA (or further indication of any other product acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment (at the sole option of each such former shareholder) of £5.0 million (approximately $6.6 million as of June 30, 2026) for the potential market approval.

The Company has no provision for any of these obligations since the amounts are either not paid or payable as of June 30, 2026.