NABI » Topics » Legal Proceedings

These excerpts taken from the NABI 10-K filed Mar 11, 2009.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are parties to legal proceedings that we believe to be ordinary, routine litigation, incidental to the business to present or former operations. It is management’s opinion, based on the advice of counsel, that the ultimate resolution of such litigation will not have a material adverse affect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are parties to legal proceedings that we believe to be ordinary, routine litigation, incidental to the business to present or former operations. It is management’s opinion, based on the advice of counsel, that the ultimate resolution of such litigation will not have a material adverse affect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are parties to legal proceedings that we believe to be ordinary, routine litigation, incidental to the business to present or former operations. It is management’s opinion, based on the advice of counsel, that the ultimate resolution of such litigation will not have a material adverse affect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are parties to legal proceedings that we believe to be ordinary, routine litigation, incidental to the business to present or former operations. It is management’s opinion, based on the advice of counsel, that the ultimate resolution of such litigation will not have a material adverse affect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are parties to legal proceedings that we believe to be ordinary, routine litigation, incidental to the business to present or
former operations. It is management’s opinion, based on the advice of counsel, that the ultimate resolution of such litigation will not have a material adverse affect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


These excerpts taken from the NABI 10-K filed Feb 28, 2008.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane’s submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent, which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane’s proposed generic product would be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

 

16


Table of Contents

On May 25, 2006, we filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,875,445. On June 9, 2006, Roxane filed an answer and counterclaims to our amended complaint, in which it denied infringement and asserted several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, Roxanne has asserted that it does not infringe either patent, that the patents are invalid, and that the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In addition, Roxane has asserted a counterclaim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Roxane seeks unspecified damages incurred and requests that such damages be trebled under the antitrust statute.

On July 18, 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss Roxane’s antitrust counterclaim, as well as to stay and bifurcate discovery on that counterclaim. On October 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery on the counterclaim should proceed simultaneously with discovery on the underlying patent claim. The District Judge has not yet ruled on the portion of the motion that seeks to dismiss the counterclaim on the pleadings. The parties are in the deposition phase of discovery.

On November 12, 2006, we completed the sale of PhosLo and related intellectual property, including the patents which are the subject of the Roxane litigation to Fresenius. As a consequence of this sale, Fresenius assumed prosecution of the litigation and the costs associated therewith; however, we remain a defendant in an antitrust counterclaim and we remain responsible for defense costs associated with the counterclaim and for any liability arising from the counterclaim.

On July 18, 2006, we commenced an arbitration proceeding against Inhibitex, Inc., or Inhibitex, with respect to claims by us against Inhibitex arising in connection with a Production Agreement between us and Inhibitex. On August 10, 2006, Inhibitex asserted certain counterclaims in the arbitration proceeding. The arbitrator dismissed Inhibitex’s counterclaims at a hearing on January 30, 2007. On February 9, 2007, the arbitrator entered an award in our favor in the amount of $4.5 million. Subsequently, we moved to confirm the award in the Supreme Court of New York and Inhibitex moved to vacate the award. On October 11, 2007, the court issued a decision denying our petition with respect to $3.3 million in cancellation fees, but affirmed the arbitrator’s award in the amount of $1.2 million, which amount was received in January 2008. We have appealed the decision of the court with respect to the cancellation fees.


ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice
letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane’s submission of its
ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent, which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane’s proposed generic product would be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the
patent infringement lawsuit.

 


16







Table of Contents


On May 25, 2006, we filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent
No. 6,875,445. On June 9, 2006, Roxane filed an answer and counterclaims to our amended complaint, in which it denied infringement and asserted several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, Roxanne has asserted that it does not
infringe either patent, that the patents are invalid, and that the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In addition, Roxane has asserted a counterclaim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Roxane seeks unspecified
damages incurred and requests that such damages be trebled under the antitrust statute.

On July 18, 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss Roxane’s
antitrust counterclaim, as well as to stay and bifurcate discovery on that counterclaim. On October 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery on the counterclaim should proceed simultaneously with discovery on the underlying patent
claim. The District Judge has not yet ruled on the portion of the motion that seeks to dismiss the counterclaim on the pleadings. The parties are in the deposition phase of discovery.

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">On November 12, 2006, we completed the sale of PhosLo and related intellectual property, including the patents which are the subject of the Roxane litigation to Fresenius. As a consequence of this sale, Fresenius
assumed prosecution of the litigation and the costs associated therewith; however, we remain a defendant in an antitrust counterclaim and we remain responsible for defense costs associated with the counterclaim and for any liability arising from the
counterclaim.

On July 18, 2006, we commenced an arbitration proceeding against Inhibitex, Inc., or Inhibitex, with respect to claims by us against
Inhibitex arising in connection with a Production Agreement between us and Inhibitex. On August 10, 2006, Inhibitex asserted certain counterclaims in the arbitration proceeding. The arbitrator dismissed Inhibitex’s counterclaims at a hearing on
January 30, 2007. On February 9, 2007, the arbitrator entered an award in our favor in the amount of $4.5 million. Subsequently, we moved to confirm the award in the Supreme Court of New York and Inhibitex moved to vacate the award. On
October 11, 2007, the court issued a decision denying our petition with respect to $3.3 million in cancellation fees, but affirmed the arbitrator’s award in the amount of $1.2 million, which amount was received in January 2008. We have
appealed the decision of the court with respect to the cancellation fees.

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed Nov 8, 2007.

Legal Proceedings

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane Laboratories’ submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent, which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane Laboratories’ proposed generic product would be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

On May 25, 2006, we filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,875,445. On June 9, 2006, Roxane filed an answer and counterclaims to the amended complaint, in which it denied infringement and asserted several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, Roxanne has asserted that it does not infringe either patent, that the patents are invalid, and that the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In addition, Roxane has asserted a counterclaim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Roxane seeks unspecified damages incurred and requests that such damages be trebled under the antitrust statute.

On July 18, 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss Roxane’s anti-trust counterclaim, as well as to stay and bifurcate discovery on that counterclaim. On October 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery on the counterclaim should proceed simultaneously with discovery on the underlying patent claim. On March 21, 2007, the District Judge denied our motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Discovery has closed although, by agreement between the parties, some further expert deposition still may take place.

On November 12, 2006, we completed the sale of the PhosLo product line and related intellectual property, including the patents which are the subject of this litigation to a U.S. subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care. As a consequence of this sale, we are no longer the plaintiff in this litigation. However, we remain a defendant with the purchaser in relation to an anti-trust claim filed by Roxane in this litigation. The anti-trust counterclaim is based on allegations that we should not have initiated litigation and have continued to maintain the litigation after the sale. Consequently, we remain responsible for all litigation costs in connection with the anti-trust counterclaim for as long as the counterclaim remains a part of this litigation. We continue to seek dismissal of this counterclaim.

NOTE 9 INCOME TAXES

This excerpt taken from the NABI DEFA14A filed Oct 25, 2007.

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane Laboratories’ submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent, which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane Laboratories’ proposed generic product would be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

On May 25, 2006, we filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,875,445. On June 9, 2006, Roxane filed an answer and counterclaims to the amended complaint, in which it denied infringement and asserted several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, Roxanne has asserted that it does not infringe either patent, that the patents are invalid, and that the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In addition, Roxane has asserted a counterclaim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Roxane seeks unspecified damages incurred and requests that such damages be trebled under the antitrust statute.

On July 18, 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss Roxane’s anti-trust counterclaim, as well as to stay and bifurcate discovery on that counterclaim. On October 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery on the counterclaim should proceed simultaneously with discovery on the underlying patent claim. On March 21, 2007, the District Judge denied our motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Discovery has closed although, by agreement between the parties, some further expert deposition still may take place.

On November 12, 2006, we completed the sales of the PhosLo product line and related intellectual property, including the patents which are the subject of this litigation to a U.S. subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care. As a consequence of this sale, we are no longer the plaintiff in this litigation. However, we remain a defendant with the purchaser in relation to an anti-trust claim filed by Roxane in this litigation. The anti-trust counterclaim is based on allegations that we should not have initiated litigation and have continued to maintain the litigation after the sale. Consequently, we remain responsible for all litigation costs in connection with the anti-trust counterclaim for as long as the counterclaim remains a part of this litigation.

We remain committed to protecting our intellectual property and will take all appropriate steps to vigorously protect our patent rights.

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed Aug 2, 2007.

Legal Proceedings

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane Laboratories’ submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent, which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane Laboratories’ proposed generic product would be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

On May 25, 2006, we filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,875,445. On June 9, 2006, Roxane filed an answer and counterclaims to the amended complaint, in which it denied infringement and asserted several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, Roxanne has asserted that it does not infringe either patent, that the patents are invalid, and that the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In addition, Roxane has asserted a counterclaim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Roxane seeks unspecified damages incurred and requests that such damages be trebled under the antitrust statute.

On July 18, 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss Roxane’s anti-trust counterclaim, as well as to stay and bifurcate discovery on that counterclaim. On October 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery on the counterclaim should proceed simultaneously with discovery on the underlying patent claim. On March 21, 2007, the District Judge denied our motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Discovery has closed although, by agreement between the parties, some further expert deposition still may take place.

On November 12, 2006, we completed the sale of the PhosLo product line and related intellectual property, including the patents which are the subject of this litigation to a U.S. subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care. As a consequence of this sale, we are no longer the plaintiff in this litigation. However, we remain a defendant with the purchaser in relation to an anti-trust claim filed by Roxane in this litigation. The anti-trust counterclaim is based on allegations that we should not have initiated litigation and have continued to maintain the litigation after the sale. Consequently, we remain responsible for all litigation costs in connection with the anti-trust counterclaim for as long as the counterclaim remains a part of this litigation.

NOTE 8 INCOME TAXES

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed May 3, 2007.

Legal Proceedings

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane Laboratories’ submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent, which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane Laboratories’ proposed generic product would be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

On May 25, 2006, we filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,875,445. On June 9, 2006, Roxane filed an answer and counterclaims to the amended complaint, in which it denied infringement and asserted several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, Roxanne has asserted that it does not infringe either patent, that the patents are invalid, and that the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In addition, Roxane has asserted a counterclaim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Roxane seeks unspecified damages incurred and requests that such damages be trebled under the antitrust statute.

On July 18, 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss Roxane’s anti-trust counterclaim, as well as to stay and bifurcate discovery on that counterclaim. On October 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery on the counterclaim should proceed simultaneously with discovery on the underlying patent claim. On March 21, 2007, the District Judge denied our motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Discovery has closed although, by agreement between the parties, some further expert deposition still may take place.

On November 12, 2006, we completed the sale of the PhosLo product line and related intellectual property, including the patents which are the subject of this litigation to a U.S. subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care. As a consequence of this sale, we are no longer the plaintiff in this litigation. However, we remain a defendant with the purchaser in relation to an anti-trust claim filed by Roxane in this litigation. The anti-trust counterclaim is based on allegations that we should not have initiated litigation and have continued to maintain the litigation after the sale. Consequently, we remain responsible for all litigation costs in connection with the anti-trust counterclaim for as long as the counterclaim remains a part of this litigation.

 

10


Table of Contents

NOTE 8 INCOME TAXES

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed Nov 14, 2006.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or “Roxane”, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane Laboratories’ submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane Laboratories’ proposed generic product will be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

On May 25, 2006, we filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,875,445. On June 9, 2006, Roxane filed an answer and counterclaims to the amended complaint, in which it denied infringement and asserted several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, Roxanne has asserted that it does not infringe either patent, that the patents are invalid, and that the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In addition, Roxane has asserted a counterclaim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Roxane seeks unspecified damages incurred and requests that such damages be trebled under the antitrust statute.

On July 18, 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss Roxane’s antitrust counterclaim, as well as to stay and bifurcate discovery on that counterclaim. On October 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery on the counterclaim should proceed simultaneously with discovery on the underlying patent claim. The District Judge has not yet ruled on the portion of the motion that seeks to dismiss the counterclaim on the pleadings. The parties are in the deposition phase of discovery.

We remain committed to protecting our intellectual property and will take all appropriate steps to vigorously protect our patent rights.

Following the closing of the transaction contemplated by the definitive agreement, Fresenius has agreed to assume certain liabilities associated with PhosLo, including the prosecution of the Roxane patent litigation initiated by us.

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed Aug 2, 2006.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or “Roxane”, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane Laboratories’ submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane Laboratories’ proposed generic product will be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

On May 25, 2006, we filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,875,445. On June 9, 2006, Roxane filed an answer and counterclaims to the amended complaint, in which it denied infringement and asserted several affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, Roxanne has asserted that it does not infringe either patent, that the patents are invalid, and that the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In addition, Roxane has asserted a counterclaim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Roxane seeks unspecified damages incurred and requests that such damages be trebled under the antitrust statute.

We remain committed to protecting our intellectual property and will take all appropriate steps to vigorously protect our patent rights.

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed May 5, 2006.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or “Roxane”, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane Laboratories’ submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane Laboratories’ proposed generic product will be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

We remain committed to protecting our intellectual property and will take all appropriate steps to vigorously protect our patent rights.

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-K filed Mar 6, 2006.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo Gelcaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification letter we received from Roxane concerning Roxane’s filing of an ANDA with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo Gelcaps, on the basis that Roxane’s submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent that expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane’s proposed generic product will be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

We remain committed to protecting our intellectual property and will take all appropriate steps to vigorously protect our patent rights.

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed Oct 21, 2005.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

 

On September 27, 2005, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or “Roxane”, for infringement of our U.S. Patent Number 6,576,665 for PhosLo GelCaps. We filed this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification notice letter submitted by Roxane to us concerning Roxane’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps. The lawsuit was filed on the basis that Roxane Laboratories’ submission of its ANDA and its proposed generic product infringe the referenced patent which expires in 2021. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, FDA approval of Roxane Laboratories’ proposed generic product will be stayed until the earlier of 30 months or resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit.

 

We remain committed to protecting our intellectual property and will take all appropriate steps to vigorously protect our patent rights.

 

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed Jul 29, 2005.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

 

We are a party to 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.

 

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-Q filed Apr 25, 2005.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

 

We are a party to 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.

 

This excerpt taken from the NABI 10-K filed Mar 10, 2005.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

 

We are a party to litigation in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that such litigation will have a material adverse effect on our future business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki