On October 7, 2022, putative Ampio shareholder Robert Maresca filed
a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Maresca v. Martino, et al., 22-cv-2646-KLM. The derivative complaint,
brought on behalf of the Company, asserts claims against a number
of current and former executives and directors of the Company,
namely Michael A. Martino, Michael Macaluso, Holli Cherevka, David
Bar-Or, David Stevens, J. Kevin Buchi, Philip H. Coelho and Richard
B. Giles.
Based largely on the same allegations as the Kain securities fraud class action complaint
(including Ampio’s reports in May and August, 2022, regarding its
internal investigation and findings), the Complaint asserts that
the individual defendants caused the Company to make false or
misleading statements in its SEC filings by “hyp[ing Ampio’s]
ability to successfully file a BLA for Ampion;” “exaggerate[ing]
results of the AP-013 study;” “misstat[ing] the true timing of
unblinding of data from the AP-013 study;” and “fail[ing] to
maintain internal controls.” The Complaint also asserts that the
defendants failed to exercise due care and comply with the
Company’s policies and procedures designed to ensure Board and
Audit Committee oversight of the business operations and ethical
business practices were maintained. It also contends that two of
the defendants (Cherevka and Coelho) sold Company stock while in
possession of material non-public information at artificially
inflated prices in violation of the Company’s insider trading
restrictions. The Complaint asserts that the individuals should not
have received compensation while violating their duties to the
Company. The Complaint also alleges that the defendants caused the
Company to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated
prices, causing damage to the Company itself.
The Complaint asserts six
causes of action on behalf of the Company and against the
individual defendants: (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act based on purportedly false and misleading statements
in the Company’s proxy statements; (2) violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; (3)
control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act;
(4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) waste
of corporate assets. The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory and restitution damages to be paid to Ampio, together
with pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as injunctive relief
imposing certain corporate governance reforms and attorneys’ fees
and costs.
On November 2, 2022, the Complaint and plaintiff (together with
plaintiff in a second derivative action -- the Marquis action, discussed below) filed a joint
motion to consolidate the two derivative actions and appoint the
lawyers representing the two plaintiffs as co-lead counsel. That
same day, the Company and plaintiff filed a stipulation providing
the Company additional time to answer, move or otherwise respond to
the Complaint.
Ampio intends to defend itself vigorously against this action.
Marquis v. Martino, et al.,
22-cv-2803-KLM
On October 25, 2022, putative
shareholder Samantha Marquis filed a derivative complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
captioned Marquis v. Martino, et al., 22-cv-2803-KLM. The
Complaint, filed on behalf of Ampio, asserts that various current
and former officers and directors of Ampio – namely, Michael
Martino, Michael Macaluso, Holli Cherevka, David Bar-Or, David
Stevens, Kevin Buchi, Philip Coehlo, and Richard Giles, breached
their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers and violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by causing the Company to file
false and misleading proxy statements. The Complaint focuses on the
Company’s alleged failure to timely report that the results of the
AP-013 trial for Ampion were unfavorable, failing to show efficacy
on the co-primary endpoints of pain and function, and the Company’s
alleged failure to disclose the results of and timing of unblinding
the study data. The Complaint asserts that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making or causing the
Company to make materially false and misleading statements
regarding Ampio’s business, operations and prospects and by failing
to maintain adequate internal controls. Based on these allegations,
the Complaint asserts two causes of action on behalf of the
Company: (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
against all defendants other than Cherevka; and (2) breach of
fiduciary duty against all defendants. Based on these claims, the
Complaint seeks judgment in favor of the Company and against the
individual defendants in an unspecified amount of compensatory and
restitution damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interest
and costs of the action including reasonable attorneys’ and
experts’ fees as well as a mandatory injunction requiring Ampio and
the defendants to reform and improve the corporate governance and
internal controls of the Company.