13. Commitments and contingencies

Operating Leases — The Company leases certain facilities and equipment under various operating leases, which expire at various dates through 2014 and beyond. Future payments are deemed insignificant.

Rent expense under all operating leases, including office space and equipment, for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012, and 2013 was approximately $766,000, $675,000, and $645,000 respectively.

Capital Leases — The Company’s capital leases were not material for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Supply Agreement — In November 2007, the Company entered into a long-term supply agreement with N.V. Organon (“Organon”), now a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. (the “Supply Agreement”), pursuant to which Organon manufactured and supplied specified quantities of recombinant human insulin to the Company. In June 2011, the Company entered into a letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with Organon to settle a dispute that arose between the Company and Organon in connection with the termination by the Company of the Supply Agreement. Under the terms of the Letter Agreement, the Company paid Organon an aggregate of $16.0 million in two installments, each of which was paid after the Company received certain quantities of recombinant human insulin manufactured and supplied by Organon. The Letter Agreement is in full and final settlement of, and the Company and Organon agreed to release each other from, any and all actions and claims that the Company and Organon had or may have against each other in connection with the dispute regarding the Supply Agreement and related matters. The Company has concluded that the Letter Agreement represents a multiple element arrangement consisting of two elements representing the purchase of insulin and a contract cancellation fee. The Company has allocated the $16.0 million settlement in the following manner: first to the fair value of the insulin received, which was recorded as expense of $8.4 million and the remaining $7.6 million to the contract cancellation fee. These charges were recorded to “Research and development” operating expenses in the consolidated statements of operations of 2011.

Guarantees and Indemnifications — In the ordinary course of its business, the Company makes certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its Bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has not recorded any liability for these indemnities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. However, the Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable. No such losses have been recorded to date.

Litigation — The Company is subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of its business. As of December 31, 2013, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. The Company maintains liability insurance coverage to protect the Company’s assets from losses arising out of or involving activities associated with ongoing and normal business operations. In accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies, the Company records a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s policy is to accrue for legal expenses in connection with legal proceeding and claims as they are incurred.

The Securities Action. Beginning January 31, 2011, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and four of our officers — Alfred E. Mann, Hakan S. Edstrom, Dr. Peter C. Richardson (a former officer) and Matthew J. Pfeffer — on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and were brought as purported shareholder class actions. In general, the complaints alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company’s common stock. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California consolidated the pending actions for all purposes. The consolidated action is referred to as the Securities Action.

On July 23, 2012, the Company, while continuing to deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever arising out of the Securities Action, and without in any way admitting fault or liability, entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the Securities Action. The current and former officers and directors named as individual defendants in the consolidated lawsuits also entered into the stipulation of settlement.

In exchange for a release of all claims by the class members, among others, and a dismissal of the consolidated lawsuits, the Company agreed (i) to cause the Company’s insurers to pay class members and their attorneys a total of $16.0 million; and (ii) to issue to class members and their attorneys 2,777,778 shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company also agreed that if the consolidated closing bid price for the Company’s common stock is below $1.00 per share on the date the U.S. District Court enters an order of final judgment, then the Company will issue into the Escrow Account an additional 1,000,000 shares of its common stock. On September 12, 2012, the U.S. District Court preliminarily approved the settlement.

On December 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued the Order and Final Judgment, providing final approval of the settlement for the securities action. The Order and Final Judgment consisted of requiring the Company to cause its insurers to pay $16.0 million and to issue the 2,777,778 shares of its common stock in accordance with the stipulation of settlement. The Order and Final Judgment did not include the requirement of the Company to issue the additional 1,000,000 shares of its common stock. In late September and in early October, following the preliminary approval of the settlement, the Company’s insurers remitted payment of the $16.0 million into the Escrow Account. On December 31, 2012, following final approval of the settlement, the Company initiated the transfer of the 2,777,778 shares of its common stock into the Escrow Account. The stock transfer settled on January 2, 2013. The shares were issued pursuant to an exemption from registration provided by Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. As of December 31, 2012, the Securities Action was concluded.

The Derivative Actions. Beginning in February 2011, several shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles and in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against all of the Company’s directors and certain of its officers. The complaints in the shareholder derivative actions allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. In general, the complaints allege that the defendants caused or allowed for the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles consolidated the actions pending before it. The consolidated state derivative actions are referred to as the State Derivative Action. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has also consolidated the derivative actions pending before it. The consolidated federal derivative actions are referred to as the Federal Derivative Action. The State Derivative Action and the Federal Derivative Action are collectively referred to as the Derivative Actions.

On August 3, 2012, the Company, while continuing to deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever arising out of the Derivative Actions and without in any way admitting fault or liability, entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the Derivative Action. Subject to preliminary and final approval of the settlement by the U.S. District Court and notice to shareholders, and in an exchange for a release of all claims by the plaintiffs, among others, and a dismissal of the Derivative Actions, the Company agreed (i) to adopt certain corporate governance measures, (ii) to cause the Company’s insurers to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys a total of $800,000, and (iii) to issue plaintiffs’ attorneys 225,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. On September 12, 2012, the U.S. District Court preliminarily approved the settlement.

On November 19, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued the Order and Final Judgment, providing final approval of the settlement for the derivative action. The Order and Final Judgment consisted of requiring the Company to cause its insurers to pay $800,000 and to issue the 225,000 shares of its common stock in accordance with the stipulation of settlement. In late September and in early October, following the preliminary approval of the settlement, the Company’s insurers remitted payment of the $800,000 into an account established by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. In December 2012, following final approval of the settlement, the Company transferred the 225,000 shares of its common stock into an investment brokerage account established by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The shares were issued pursuant to an exemption from registration provided by Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. As of December 31, 2012, the Derivative Actions were concluded.

As a result of settlement discussions with the plaintiffs taking place in the latter part of the quarter ended June 30, 2012 and entering into the stipulation of settlement for the Securities Action on July 23, 2012 and for the Derivative Action on August 3, 2012, the Company determined that the liabilities pertaining to both the securities and derivative lawsuits were probable as of June 30, 2012. The Company’s financial statements as of and for the three months ended June 30, 2012 reflected the following accruals:

(i)

Cash consideration. The Company recorded a current liability of $16.8 million under “Accrued expense and other current liabilities” and a corresponding current asset under “Prepaid expenses and other current asset” to reflect a receivable from the Company’s insurers. The Company has determined that the collectability of the receivable from the insurers is probable. The cash obligation resulted in no charge to the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the period.

(ii)

Stock consideration. The Company recorded a charge to “General and administrative” expenses and an estimated current liability under “Accrued expense and other current liabilities” of $7.7 million representing the estimated fair value of the 3,002,778 common shares to be issued in the aggregate subject to court approval.

(iii)

Additional stock consideration. The Company concluded that the contingent obligation to issue an additional 1,000,000 shares of its common stock, as defined in the stipulation of settlement agreement for the Securities Action, met the definition of a derivative instrument in accordance with ASC 815. The Company estimated the fair value of the derivative instrument using the Monte Carlo simulation model to forecast the contingent obligation applying probabilities that the stock price will be lower than $1.00 based on the following assumptions: expected volatility of 60%, risk free interest rate of 0.16% and final judgment dates ranging from four to six months. As a result, the Company estimated the fair value of this contingent obligation to be immaterial.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company estimated the aggregate fair value of the stock consideration at $8.6 million and recognized an increase in the contingent liability of $901,000 during the quarter ended September 30, 2012. During the quarter ended September 30, 2012, the Company remeasured the additional stock consideration using the Monte Carlo simulation model to forecast the contingent obligation applying probabilities that the stock price will be lower than $1.00 based on the following assumptions: expected volatility of 54%, risk free interest rate of 0.1% and final judgment date on or before December 31, 2012. As a result, the Company estimated the fair value of this contingent obligation related to the additional stock consideration to be immaterial.

The Company considered the following in its financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012:

(i)

Cash consideration. Upon satisfying the conditions of cash payment during the fourth quarter of 2012 and receiving final approvals of settlement, the Company relieved from its balance sheet the $16.8 million of current liability and current receivable from insurers as of December 31, 2012.

(ii)

Stock consideration. As of December 31, 2012, the Company satisfied the conditions of issuing 225,000 shares of its common stock on the Derivative Action. With respect to the Securities Action, the issuance of 2,777,778 shares was initiated prior to year end and subsequently settled after year end. The Company concluded that the requirement to deliver these shares of common stock met the definition of a financial instrument representing a contingent forward contract in accordance with ASC 815 and that the forward contract met the criteria for equity classification, and further remeasurement through settlement was not required. The forward contract to issue shares settled on January 2, 2013, upon consummation of the delivery of these shares. The final fair values of the stock consideration are summarized in the following table:


	Number of Shares		Closing Price Per Share on Final Approval Date		Final Fair Value of Stock Consideration
Derivative Action		225,000	$	1.94	$	436,500
Securities Action		2,777,778	$	2.18		6,055,556

Total		3,002,778			$	6,492,056

In recognizing the fair value of the total stock consideration to equity on the date of final approval of the respective settlements, the Company released the previously recorded litigation accrual of $8.6 million, recognized the fair value of the total stock consideration of $6.5 million to equity, and recorded an adjustment to decrease legal expense by $2.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.