14. Commitments and Contingencies

Royalty and License Fee Commitments

We have entered into certain license agreements, as identified in Note 12, with third parties that include the payment of development and regulatory milestones, as well as royalty payments, upon the achievement of pre-established development, regulatory and commercial targets. Our payment obligation related to these license agreements is contingent upon the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of the licensed products. Due to the nature of these arrangements, the future potential payments are inherently uncertain, and accordingly, no amounts have been recorded on our Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

Development and Manufacturing Agreement Commitments

In February 2013, we entered into a development and manufacturing agreement with a third-party supplier for the production of the active ingredient for rucaparib. Under the Development and Manufacturing Agreement, we will provide the third-party supplier a rolling 24-month forecast that will be updated by us on a quarterly basis. We are obligated to order the quantity specified in the first 12 months of any forecast. Currently, $48.5 million of purchase commitments exist under this agreement.

Legal Proceedings

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in several lawsuits, as described below. We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can we estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, that may result. An adverse outcome in these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the “Kimbro Complaint”) against Clovis and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Medina Complaint”). The Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and November 13, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was filed by John Moran in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Moran Complaint”). The Moran Complaint contains similar allegations to those asserted in the Kimbro and Medina Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 13, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Rocco Complaint”). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the District of Colorado and the Northern District of California seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff movants other than M. Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications LTD (the “Arkin Plaintiffs”) subsequently filed notices of non-opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs’ application.

On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the “Motion to Transfer”). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants filed a statement in the Northern District of California supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to Transfer.

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016, the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to Transfer.

On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the putative class.

On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions (the “Consolidated Complaint”) and the responses thereto, including the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”), and to stay discovery and related proceedings until the District of Colorado issues a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion was entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016. Subject to further agreed-upon extensions by the parties, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on May 6, 2016.

The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the “Clovis Defendants”), certain underwriters (the “Underwriter Defendants”) for a Company follow-on offering conducted in July 2015 (the “July 2015 Offering”) and certain Company venture capital investors (the “Venture Capital Defendants”). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants violated particular sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). The purported misrepresentations and omissions concern allegedly misleading statements about rociletinib. The putative class action is purportedly brought on behalf of investors who purchased the Company’s securities between May 31, 2014 and April 7, 2016 (with respect to the Exchange Act claims) and investors who purchased the Company’s securities pursuant or traceable to the July 2015 Offering (with respect to the Securities Act claims). The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages.

On May 23, 2016, the Medina, Kimbro, Rocco and Moran actions were consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding in the District of Colorado.

The Clovis Defendants, along with the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture Capital Defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 27, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 23, 2016, and the defendants filed their replies on October 14, 2016.

The Clovis Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Kimbro, Medina, Moran and Rocco Complaints, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.

On December 30, 2015, Jamie McCall, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the “McCall Complaint”) against certain officers and directors of Clovis in the Colorado District Court, County of Boulder. The McCall Complaint generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Clovis by participating in misrepresentation of the Company’s business operations and prospects. The McCall Complaint also alleged claims for abuse of control, gross mismanagement and unjust enrichment. The McCall Complaint sought, among other things, an award of money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches and other forms of equitable relief. On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the McCall Complaint and the action was terminated by the Court.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the “Electrical Workers Complaint”) against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors, investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased stock in Clovis’ July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the District of Colorado (“Motion to Transfer”). On March 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo County Superior Court (“Motion to Remand”). Following briefing on the Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern District of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016 concerning the Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the court granted to the Motion to Remand. On May 5, 2016, the Northern District of California issued a written decision and order granting the Motion to Remand the case to the Superior Court, County of San Mateo and denying the Motion to Transfer as moot.

While the case was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the defendants’ time to respond to the Electrical Workers Complaint for 30 days following the filing of an amended complaint by plaintiff or the designation by plaintiff of the Electrical Workers Complaint as the operative complaint.  Following remand, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo so-ordered the stipulation on June 22, 2016.

On June 30, 2016, the Electrical Workers Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the July 2015 Offering and certain Company venture capital investors. The Amended Complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act based upon alleged misstatements in Clovis’ offering documents for the July 2015 Offering. The Amended Complaint includes new allegations about the Company’s rociletinib disclosures. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Pursuant to a briefing schedule ordered by the court on July 28, 2016, defendants filed a motion to stay the Electrical Workers action pending resolution of the Medina, Kimbro, Moran, and Rocco actions in the District of Colorado (“Motion to Stay”), and a demurrer to the Amended Complaint, on August 15, 2016; plaintiffs filed their oppositions on August 31, 2016; and the defendants filed their reply briefs on September 15, 2016.  On September 23, 2016, after hearing oral argument, the San Mateo Superior Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the related securities class action captioned Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et. al., No. 1:15-cv-2546 (the “Colorado Action”).  Per the order to stay proceedings, the San Mateo Superior Court will defer issuing a ruling on defendants’ pending demurrer, and the parties’ first status report as to the progress of the Colorado Action is due on March 23, 2017.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Electrical Workers Amended Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.

On February 19, 2016, Maris Sanchez, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the “Sanchez Complaint”) against certain officers and directors of Clovis in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Sanchez Complaint generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Clovis by participating in misrepresentation of the Company’s business operations and prospects. The Sanchez Complaint also alleged claims for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. The Sanchez Complaint sought, among other things, an award of money damages. On March 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Sanchez Complaint without prejudice. On March 14, 2016, the Sanchez action was terminated by the District of Colorado.

We have received requests for information from governmental agencies relating to our regulatory update announcement in November 2015 that the FDA requested additional clinical data on the efficacy and safety of rociletinib. We are cooperating with the inquiries.

We received a letter dated May 31, 2016 from an alleged owner of our common stock, which purports to set forth a demand for inspection of certain of our books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 (the “Demand Letter”). The Demand Letter was purportedly made for the purpose of investigating alleged misconduct at the Company relating to rociletinib. On June 24, 2016, we submitted a response to the Demand Letter. We believe that the Demand Letter fails to establish an entitlement to any of the requested documents, but there can be no assurance about the likelihood of an adverse outcome.