12.       Contingencies

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers, directors and underwriters for our February 2008 public offering of common stock (Stock Offering). An additional purported securities class action lawsuit containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 20, 2009. By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single action. On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 24, 2009. We filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2009. On December 21, 2009, the Court granted our motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on January 27, 2010. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of our product candidate fostamatinib (then known as R788). The plaintiff sought damages, including rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the Stock Offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of our common stock during the period between December 13, 2007 and February 9, 2009, including purchasers in the Stock Offering. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on February 16, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the Court issued an order granting our motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On September 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that it will not amend its complaint and requested that the Court enter a final judgment. On October 28, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment requesting entry of such judgment in favor of the defendants. On November 1, 2010, judgment was entered dismissing the action. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2010, appealing the district court’s order granting our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiff filed its opening brief on February 23, 2011. We filed our opposition brief on April 8, 2011. On May 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed its reply brief.

We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual costs to be incurred relating to the lawsuit will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain and we could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of this suit, and we may not prevail. Monitoring and defending legal actions is time consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. In addition, we may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with the litigation. We are not currently able to estimate the possible cost to us from this matter, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve this matter or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. We have not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to this lawsuit.

A reserve may be required in the future due to new developments with respect to the pending lawsuit or patent claims or changes in approach such as a change in or establishment of a settlement strategy in dealing with these matters.