XML 27 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.23.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Leases
The Company leases its operating and office facilities for various terms under long-term, non-cancelable operating lease agreements in Brisbane, California; Columbus, Ohio; West Chester, Pennsylvania; Flowood, Mississippi; Gaithersburg, Maryland; Fremantle, Australia; and Stockholm, Sweden. 
The Company's facility leases expire at various dates through 2033. In the normal course of business, it is expected that these leases will be renewed or replaced by leases on other properties.
As of March 31, 2023, the carrying value of the ROU asset was $33.4 million. The related current and non-current liabilities as of March 31, 2023 were $5.7 million and $32.0 million, respectively. The current and non-current lease liabilities are included in accrued and other current liabilities and operating lease liability, less current portion, respectively, in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.
The following table summarizes the lease cost for the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022 (in thousands):
Three Months Ended
March 31,
20232022
Operating lease cost$1,983 $1,413 
Total lease cost$1,983 $1,413 

March 31, 2023
Other information:
Weighted-average remaining lease term (in years)6.05
Weighted-average discount rate (%)7.1 %
In February and June 2022, the Company entered into various lease agreements to lease office buildings in California, Nebraska, and Australia with lease terms ranging from 2 to 10.5 years. Certain leases have options to renew the respective lease terms ranging from 5 to 10 years.
In June 2022, the Company modified the termination date of the lease agreement for its headquarters in South San Francisco, California from December 31, 2022 to July 15, 2022. As a result, the Company remeasured its lease liability using the current incremental borrowing rate and made an adjustment by reducing the ROU asset and lease liability by $0.5 million.
Lease liabilities for the lease agreements made in February and June 2022 are recognized at the present value of the fixed lease payments using the current incremental borrowing rate at the lease commencement date. ROU assets are recognized based on the initial present value of the fixed lease payments.
The following table summarizes the ROU assets and lease liabilities for certain lease agreements which commenced in July 2022 (in thousands):
March 31, 2023December 31, 2022
ROU assets$13,776 $14,321 
Lease liabilities14,773 15,302 
The following table summarizes the ROU assets and lease liabilities for certain lease agreements which commenced in August 2022 (in thousands):
March 31, 2023December 31, 2022
ROU assets$5,698 $5,814 
Lease liabilities5,937 6,005 
Maturities of operating lease liabilities as of March 31, 2023 are as follows (in thousands):
Year Ending December 31,Operating Leases
Remainder of 2023$5,854 
20247,931 
20257,681 
20267,019 
20277,166 
Thereafter10,604 
Total lease payments46,255 
Less imputed interest8,511 
Present value of future minimum lease payments37,744 
Less operating lease liability, current portion5,738 
Operating lease liability, long-term portion$32,006 
The following table summarizes the supplemental cash flow information related to leases for the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022 (in thousands):
Three Months Ended
March 31,
20232022
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities
Operating cash flows used for operating leases$1,333 $972 
Royalty Commitments
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”)
In June 2014, the Company entered into a license agreement with Stanford (the “Stanford License”), which granted the Company an exclusive license to a patent relating to the diagnosis of rejection in organ transplant recipients using dd-cfDNA. Under the terms of the Stanford License, the Company is required to pay an annual license maintenance fee, six milestone payments and royalties in the low single digits of net sales of products incorporating the licensed technology. In March 2023. the Stanford License agreement was amended, which reduces the maximum royalty rate to a lower rate at which the Company may be liable to Stanford effective from April 2022. As a result, the Company reversed the excess liability in March 2023.
Illumina
On May 4, 2018, the Company entered into a license agreement with Illumina, Inc. (the “Illumina Agreement”). The Illumina Agreement requires the Company to pay royalties in the mid-single to low-double digits on sales of products covered by the Illumina Agreement.
Cibiltech Commitments
Pursuant to that certain license and commercialization agreement that the Company entered into with Cibiltech SAS (“Cibiltech”) effective April 30, 2019, the Company will share an agreed-upon percentage of revenue with Cibiltech, if and when revenues are generated from iBox.  
Other Commitments
Pursuant to the Illumina Agreement, the Company has agreed to minimum purchase commitments of finished products and raw materials from Illumina, Inc. through 2023.
Litigation and Indemnification Obligations
In response to the Company's false advertising suit filed against Natera Inc. (“Natera”), on April 10, 2019, Natera filed a counterclaim against the Company on February 18, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) alleging the Company made false and misleading claims about the performance capabilities of AlloSure. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary relief. On September 30, 2020, Natera requested leave of Court to amend its counterclaims to include additional allegations regarding purportedly false claims the Company made with respect to AlloSure,
and the Court granted Natera’s request. The trial commenced on March 7, 2022 and concluded on March 14, 2022, with the jury awarding the Company $44.9 million in damages, comprised of $21.2 million in compensatory damages and $23.7 million in punitive damages. Post-trial motion practice remains pending. The Company will not record the award until cash is received or the matter is otherwise resolved.
On July 19, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court’s judgment dismissing the Company’s patent infringement suit against Natera.
In addition, Natera filed suit against the Company on January 13, 2020, in the Court alleging, among other things, that AlloSure infringes Natera’s U.S. Patent 10,526,658. This case was consolidated with the Company’s patent infringement suit on February 4, 2020. On March 25, 2020, Natera filed an amendment to the suit alleging, among other things, that AlloSure also infringes Natera’s U.S. Patent 10,597,724. The suit seeks a judgment that the Company has infringed Natera’s patents, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Company from any further infringement of such patents and unspecified damages. On May 13, 2022, Natera filed two new complaints alleging that AlloSure infringes Natera’s U.S. Patents 10,655,180 and 11,111,544. These two cases were consolidated with the patent infringement case on June 15, 2022. On May 17, 2022, Natera agreed to dismiss the case alleging infringement of Natera’s U.S. Patent 10,526,658. On July 6, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the rest of Natera’s claims. On September 6, 2022, the Company withdrew its motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing. The Company intends to defend both of these matters vigorously, and believes that the Company has good and substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the suits, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company has not recorded any liabilities for these suits.
United States Department of Justice and United States Securities and Exchange Commission Investigations
As previously disclosed, in 2021, the Company received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) requesting that the Company produce certain documents in connection with a False Claims Act investigation being conducted by the DOJ regarding certain business practices related to the Company's kidney testing and phlebotomy services, and a subpoena from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in relation to an investigation by the SEC in respect of matters similar to those identified in the CID, as well as certain of the Company’s accounting and public reporting practices. The Company also received an information request from a state regulatory agency. This state regulatory agency advised the Company that it has completed its review of the Company’s business practices and determined that no further information or action is required. In late 2022, the Company received a request for information from a separate state regulatory agency concerning specimen collection by a vendor in the state. The Company may receive additional requests for information from the DOJ, SEC, or other regulatory and governmental agencies regarding similar or related subject matters. The Company does not believe that the CID, the SEC subpoena or the state regulatory agency information request raise any issues regarding the safety or efficacy of any of the Company's products or services and are cooperating fully with the investigations and the requests for information. Although the Company remains committed to compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, it cannot predict the outcome of the DOJ or SEC investigations, the state regulatory agency information request, or any other requests or investigations that may arise in the future regarding these or other subject matters.
From time to time, the Company may become involved in litigation and other legal actions. The Company estimates the range of liability related to any pending litigation where the amount and range of loss can be estimated. The Company records its best estimate of a loss when the loss is considered probable. Where a liability is probable and there is a range of estimated loss with no best estimate in the range, the Company records a charge equal to at least the minimum estimated liability for a loss contingency when both of the following conditions are met: (i) information available prior to issuance of the condensed consolidated financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability had been incurred at the date of the condensed consolidated financial statements, and (ii) the range of loss can be reasonably estimated.
Olymbios Matter
On April 15, 2022, a complaint was filed by Michael Olymbios against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the “San Mateo County Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company failed to pay certain fees and costs required to continue an arbitration proceeding against Dr. Olymbios, and that the Company has defamed Dr. Olymbios. Dr. Olymbios also seeks to void restrictive covenants previously agreed to by him in favor of the Company and to recover damages purportedly incurred by Dr. Olymbios. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. On April 25, 2022, the San Mateo County Court granted the Company’s ex parte application to stay the case and advance the hearing date to June 10, 2022 for the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. At the June 10, 2022 hearing, the San Mateo County Court found that the decision should be made by the arbitrator, and stayed the case. On July 19, 2022, Olymbios filed a motion to withdraw from arbitration before JAMS, which was denied on August 18, 2022. The matter is currently proceeding in arbitration. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its arbitration proceeding against Olymbios and to vigorously defend itself against Olymbios’ claims. The Company believes it has good and substantial support for it claims and good and
substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the suit by Olymbios, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail if the case continues. The Company has not recorded any liabilities for this suit.
Securities Class Action
On May 23, 2022, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund filed a federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Reginald Seeto, its President, Chief Executive Officer and member of the Company’s Board of Directors, Ankur Dhingra, its former Chief Financial Officer, Marcel Konrad, its former interim Chief Financial Officer and former Senior Vice President of Finance & Accounting, and Peter Maag, its former President, former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Board and current member of the Company’s Board of Directors. The action alleges that the Company and the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action also alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs’ costs incurred in the lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ witness fees and other costs.
On August 25, 2022, the court appointed an investor group led by the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and appointed Saxena White P.A. and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsels. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 28, 2022. On January 27, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss all claims and to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint. A hearing on these motions is scheduled for May 16, 2023. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously, and believes that the Company has good and substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the suit, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company has not recorded any liabilities for this suit.
Derivative Actions
On September 21, 2022, Jeffrey Edelman brought a stockholder derivative action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company as nominal defendant and Drs. Seeto and Maag and Mr. Dhingra, and other current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Edelman Derivative Action”). The plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company and engaged in insider trading, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The action alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company. The suit seeks a declaration that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and were unjustly enriched, and also seeks to recover damages sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged violations, along with the plaintiff’s costs incurred in the lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses.
On December 8, 2022, the court stayed the Edelman Derivative Action until twenty (20) days after the earlier of the following events: (a) the securities class action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; (b) the motion to dismiss in the securities class action is denied; (c) a joint request by plaintiff and defendants to lift the stay; (d) notification that a related derivative action that has been filed is not stayed or is no longer stayed; or (e) notification that there has been a settlement reached in the securities class action or any related derivative action.
On February 7, 2023, Jaysen Stevenson brought a stockholder derivative action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company as nominal defendant and Drs. Seeto and Maag and Mr. Dhingra and other current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Stevenson Derivative Action”). The claims and allegations in the Stevenson Derivative Action are substantially similar to those in the Edelman Derivative Action. The plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company and engaged in insider trading, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The suit seeks declaratory relief and to recover alleged damages sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged violations, along with the plaintiff’s costs incurred in the lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses.
The Company intends to defend itself vigorously, and believes that the Company has good and substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the suits, but there are no guarantees that the Company will prevail.
Insurance Matter
In December 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit against its Directors and Officers liability insurance carriers in San Mateo County Superior Court. The Company seeks a declaration that costs and fees incurred by the Company in responding to governmental investigatory requests are covered under its policies. The Company also asserts breach of contract against its primary insurer Great American Insurance Company for denying the claim. The policies provide up to $15 million in coverage limits. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims. The Company believes it has good and substantial support for its claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail in these claims.