COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES.
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Securities and Derivative Lawsuits On March 14, 2014, a purported class action securities 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 or 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 class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the purported class action securities 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 action securities lawsuits filed in the California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, 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 in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on September 19, 2014. On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with the Class Action Lawsuits. We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits. On September 9, 2016, the California District Court signed an order temporarily staying the Class Action Lawsuits to enable the parties to seek to resolve the Class Action Lawsuits. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations will be made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. 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, or the San Mateo County Court, 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. On June 26, 2015 and June 29, 2015, respectively, two additional derivative lawsuits naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants were filed in the California District Court by stockholders purporting to act on our behalf. The two derivative cases filed in the California District Court were consolidated on August 17, 2015. On August 25, 2015, an additional derivative lawsuit naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants was filed in the San Mateo County Court. The two derivative cases filed in the San Mateo County Court were consolidated on September 25, 2015. These lawsuits, each of which is based on the same factual background as the derivative lawsuit filed on April 21, 2014 in the San Mateo County Court, also allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. The plaintiffs in each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. It is possible that additional derivative lawsuits will be filed with respect to these same or other matters and also naming our officers and directors as defendants. Proceedings in the derivative lawsuits have been stayed. On July 22, 2016, a stipulation of settlement and a motion of preliminary approval was filed in the San Mateo County Court to settle all claims in each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits, and on August 19, 2016, the San Mateo County Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. Subject to final approval of the proposed settlement by the San Mateo County Court, and in exchange for a release of all claims by the plaintiffs and a dismissal of each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits with prejudice, we have agreed to (i) implement certain corporate governance refinements and (ii) instruct our insurer to pay in full the plaintiffs’ attorneys a total of $950,000. 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 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

Securities and Derivative Lawsuits

On March 14, 2014, a purported class action securities 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 or 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 class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the purported class action securities 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 action securities lawsuits filed in the California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, 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 in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on September 19, 2014. On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with the Class Action Lawsuits. We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits. On September 9, 2016, the California District Court signed an order temporarily staying the Class Action Lawsuits to enable the parties to seek to resolve the Class Action Lawsuits. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations will be made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously.

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, or the San Mateo County Court, 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. On June 26, 2015 and June 29, 2015, respectively, two additional derivative lawsuits naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants were filed in the California District Court by stockholders purporting to act on our behalf. The two derivative cases filed in the California District Court were consolidated on August 17, 2015. On August 25, 2015, an additional derivative lawsuit naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants was filed in the San Mateo County Court. The two derivative cases filed in the San Mateo County Court were consolidated on September 25, 2015. These lawsuits, each of which is based on the same factual background as the derivative lawsuit filed on April 21, 2014 in the San Mateo County Court, also allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. The plaintiffs in each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. It is possible that additional derivative lawsuits will be filed with respect to these same or other matters and also naming our officers and directors as defendants. Proceedings in the derivative lawsuits have been stayed. On July 22, 2016, a stipulation of settlement and a motion of preliminary approval was filed in the San Mateo County Court to settle all claims in each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits, and on August 19, 2016, the San Mateo County Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. Subject to final approval of the proposed settlement by the San Mateo County Court, and in exchange for a release of all claims by the plaintiffs and a dismissal of each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits with prejudice, we have agreed to (i) implement certain corporate governance refinements and (ii) instruct our insurer to pay in full the plaintiffs’ attorneys a total of $950,000.

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 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.