ARDELYX, INC.ARDX
ARDELYX, INC. Commitments Disclosure
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Guarantees and Indemnifications
We indemnify each of our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at our request in such capacity, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with our certificate of incorporation and bylaws. The term of the indemnification period lasts as long as an officer or director may be subject to any proceeding arising out of acts or omissions of such officer or director in such capacity.
The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, we currently hold director and officer liability insurance, which allows the transfer of risk associated with our exposure and may enable us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. We believe that the fair value of these indemnification obligations is minimal. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liabilities relating to these obligations for any period presented.
Legal Proceedings and Claims
On December 7, 2021 and March 29, 2022, two verified shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California purportedly on behalf of Ardelyx against certain of Ardelyx’s executive officers and members of our board of directors, captioned Go v. Raab, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09455-HSG, and Morris v. Raab, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-01988-JSC (together, the Go and Morris actions). The complaints allege that the defendants’ violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets for personally making and/or causing Ardelyx to make materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects. The complaint seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from two executive officers. On January 19, 2022 and April 27, 2022, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the Go and Morris actions, respectively, until resolution of the motion(s) to dismiss in the lawsuits captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG and Siegel v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-06228-HSG (together, the Securities Class Actions). On October 25, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate and stay the Go and Morris actions, and on October 27, 2022, the court consolidated the Go and Morris actions and stayed the consolidated action pending resolution of the anticipated motion(s) to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. The Securities Class Actions were voluntarily dismissed on March 5, 2025. The court dismissed the Go and Morris actions on April 30, 2025.
On July 17, 2024, in partnership with the AAKP and the NMQF, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against CMS, claiming that CMS has violated its statutory and regulatory authority under MIPPA, which established the ESRD PPS bundled payment system for dialysis services in 2008. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that moving XPHOZAH, along with all oral-only drugs, into the ESRD PPS is inconsistent with MIPPA’s statutory provision, and contradicts CMS’s own regulations. XPHOZAH and other oral-only drugs are not administered by dialysis providers and cannot be taken during the delivery of maintenance dialysis. On November 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, or in the Alternative, for Expedited Summary Judgment. Following the District Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, or in the Alternative, for an Injunction Pending Appeal, plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for an Administrative Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal, which was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Appellants filed an initial brief in the appeal on February 4, 2025; Appellees filed an initial brief on March 6, 2025; and Appellants filed a reply brief on March 27, 2025. Both Appellees and Appellants filed a final brief on April 10, 2025. Oral argument in the case was heard on September 25, 2025.
On August 16, 2024, a complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, captioned Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-12119 (D. Mass.). The complaint names the Company, Michael Raab, and Justin Renz as defendants and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, related to our announcement on July 2, 2024 that it had chosen not to file an application for Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment for XPHOZAH (the Yarborough Action). The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees. The Court appointed Tate Wood as lead plaintiff on October 30, 2024. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2025, in which he added Susan Rodriguez, Laura Williams and Elizabeth Grammer as additional defendants and removed Justin Renz as a defendant. The lead plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of all those who acquired Ardelyx common stock between February 22, 2024 and July 1, 2024. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 14, 2025. Plaintiffs filed a response on May 13, 2025. Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on June 23, 2025. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on September 25, 2025, and on December 24, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice. On January 21, 2026, Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
On September 6 and 13, 2024, certain Ardelyx shareholders filed two verified derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and/or 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against certain members of our board of directors and management based on substantially the same factual allegations in the Yarborough Action. The complaints seek unspecified damages and corporate governance reforms, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. On September 25, 2024, the Court consolidated the two derivative actions into the case In re Ardelyx, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-12302-LTS (D. Mass.). On November 7, 2024, the Court stayed the consolidated derivative action pending resolution of any and all motion(s) to dismiss in the Yarborough Action. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.
From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. As of December 31, 2025, there is no litigation pending that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.