efficacy of rociletinib, its safety profile, and its prospects for market success. In addition to the Securities Act claims, the Antipodean Complaint also asserted Colorado state law claims and common law claims. Both the state law and common law claims are based on allegedly false and misleading statements regarding rociletinib’s progress toward FDA approval. The Antipodean Complaint sought compensatory, recessionary, and punitive damages. On December 15, 2016, the Antipodean Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) asserting substantially the same claims against the same defendants and purporting to correct certain details in the original Antipodean Complaint.
On June 14, 2019, Clovis and Antipodean entered into an agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to settle the lawsuit. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Clovis agreed to pay Antipodean $4.0 million in cash and issue 1,482,058 shares of common stock of the Company (the “Settlement Shares”) and Antipodean agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and release Clovis, its officers and directors and underwriters from any potential liability related to the allegations asserted in the Amended Complaint. The settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing.
The cash portion of the settlement was paid on June 18, 2019. At June 30, 2019, the liability for the issuance of the shares was recorded to accrued liability for legal settlement on the Consolidated Balance Sheets in the amount of $21.0 million. Clovis issued the Settlement Shares on July 1, 2019, whereby the issuance of the shares was recorded in common stock and additional paid-in capital and the accrued liability for legal settlement was cleared.
Clovis registered under the Securities Act the resale of the Settlement Shares by Antipodean. On July 3, 2019, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Clovis and Antipodean filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice, which was entered by the court on July 5, 2019.
As the Settlement Agreement is in response to the alleged violation of securities laws by certain of our officers, we have determined that the resulting loss does not relate to activities that are in the normal course of our operations and therefore, should not be recognized in operating losses for the period. Accordingly, we have recognized the entire expense associated to the Settlement Agreement in legal settlement loss within the other income (expense), net of insurance receivable on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss.
In March 2017, two putative shareholders of the Company, Macalinao and McKenry (the “Derivative Plaintiffs”), filed shareholder derivative complaints against certain directors and officers of the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On May 4, 2017, the Macalinao and McKenry actions were consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding under the caption In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No, 2017-0222 (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”).
On May 18, 2017, the Derivative Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the “Consolidated Derivative Complaint”). The Consolidated Derivative Complaint generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company by allegedly causing or allowing misrepresentations of the Company’s business operations and prospects, failing to ensure that the TIGER-X clinical trial was being conducted in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and protocols, and engaging in insider trading. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint purported to rely on documents produced by the Company in response to prior demands for inspection of the Company’s books and records served on the Company by each of Macalinao and McKenry under 8 Del. C. § 220. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint sought, among other things, an award of money damages.
On July 31, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 31, 2017, and the defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2017.
While the motion to dismiss remained pending, on November 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental consolidated complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the Court granted that motion. On November 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental complaint (the “Supplemental Derivative Complaint”), which adds allegations concerning the Company’s, Mr. Mahaffy’s and Mr. Mast’s settlements with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Pursuant to a briefing schedule entered by the Court, the defendants filed a supplemental motion to dismiss the Supplemental Derivative Complaint on February 6, 2019; plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on February 22, 2019; and the defendants filed a reply brief on March 5, 2019. The Court held oral arguments on the defendants’ motions to dismiss on June 19, 2019. At the oral arguments, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs on the motion to dismiss; plaintiffs filed their letter brief on June 25, 2019 and the defendants filed theirs on July 1, 2019.