COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Purported Securities and Derivative Lawsuits On March 14, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET/PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on June 6, 2014, a third purported securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the purported securities class action lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both of the purported class actions filed in the California District Court and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended complaint by September 19, 2014, and our response to the consolidated amended complaint is due by November 19, 2014. On April 21, 2014, a stockholder purporting to act on our behalf filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo against certain of our officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. In general, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants caused or allowed the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with ET or PV. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. For a further discussion of these ongoing lawsuits, refer to the section entitled “Legal Proceedings” in Part II, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q. These lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of these lawsuits is necessarily uncertain. We could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense against these and any other related lawsuits and we may not prevail. We currently are not able to estimate the possible cost to us from these lawsuits, as they are currently at an early stage, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these lawsuits or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. Such amounts could be material to our financial statements even if we prevail in the defense against these lawsuits. We have not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to these lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages.

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Purported Securities and Derivative Lawsuits

On March 14, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET/PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on June 6, 2014, a third purported securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the purported securities class action lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both of the purported class actions filed in the California District Court and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended complaint by September 19, 2014, and our response to the consolidated amended complaint is due by November 19, 2014.

On April 21, 2014, a stockholder purporting to act on our behalf filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo against certain of our officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. In general, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants caused or allowed the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with ET or PV. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures.

For a further discussion of these ongoing lawsuits, refer to the section entitled “Legal Proceedings” in Part II, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q. These lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of these lawsuits is necessarily uncertain. We could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense against these and any other related lawsuits and we may not prevail. We currently are not able to estimate the possible cost to us from these lawsuits, as they are currently at an early stage, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these lawsuits or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. Such amounts could be material to our financial statements even if we prevail in the defense against these lawsuits. We have not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to these lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages.