Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company leases office facilities under various operating lease agreements. The Company’s corporate headquarters is located in Newport Beach, California, in a facility that it subleases under a non-cancelable operating lease for a fixed amount each month. The sublease for this facility expired on January 20, 2020. On May 15, 2019, the Company entered into a non-cancelable operating lease for the same office facility with the original lessor. This non-cancelable operating lease commenced on February 1, 2020 and expires on January 31, 2025. Lease payments increase based on an annual rent escalation clause that occurs each year on February 1. The Company may, under certain circumstances, terminate the lease on the 36-month anniversary of the lease commencement date by providing a written notice 12 months prior to such anniversary and paying a termination fee equal to six months basic rent plus certain other expenses. The Company has an option to extend the term of the lease for an additional 60 months, which is not recognized as part of its ROU assets and lease liabilities. The lease with the original lessor is a modification of the existing sublease that is not accounted for as a separate contract.

The Company also leases an office facility in Santa Barbara, California, under a non-cancelable operating lease, the payments of which include a three percent annual rent escalation clause that occurs on each June 1 anniversary. The lease for this facility expires on May 31, 2020 and the Company has an option to extend the term of the lease for an additional 60 months. In June 2019, the Company subleased the Santa Barbara, California facility to a third-party for a term starting on June 1, 2019 and expiring on May 31, 2020. The sublease income was not significant. Upon signing the sublease, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $80 to the right-of-use asset related to the original lease.

The Company’s lease agreements do not contain any residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. The payments associated with the renewal will only be included in the measurement of the lease liability and ROU assets if the exercise of the renewal option is determined to be reasonably certain. The Company considers the timing of the renewal period and other economic factors such as the financial implications of a decision to extend or not to extend a lease in determining if the renewal option is reasonably certain to be exercised.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, the components of operating lease expense and other quantitative information were as follows:



	Year Ended December 31, 2019
Fixed operating lease expense	$	1,080
Variable operating lease expense	110
Short-term operating lease expense	85
	$	1,275

	As of December 31, 2019
Weighted-average remaining lease term (years)	5.0
Weighted-average discount rate	9.4%

Operating lease expenses were included in the selling, general and administration expenses in the accompanying statements of operations and comprehensive loss. Operating lease right-of-use assets and related current and noncurrent operating lease liabilities are presented in the accompanying balance sheets.

The following table presents the maturity of the Company’s operating lease liabilities as of December 31, 2019, future minimum payments under the operating lease agreements with non-cancelable terms as follows:



Fiscal year
2020	$	1,201
2021	1,205
2022	1,258
2023	1,312
2024	1,369
Thereafter	114
Total operating lease payments	6,459
Less: imputed interest	(1,366		)
Present value of operating lease liabilities	$	5,093

As required by the new lease accounting standard, legacy disclosures are provided for periods prior to adoption.

Total rental expense for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $334. As of December 31, 2018, annual future minimum payments under the operating lease agreements with non-cancelable terms greater than one year are as follows:



Fiscal year
2019	$	890
2020	139
2021	—
	$	1,029

Purchase Commitments

As of December 31, 2019, the Company has entered into commitments to purchase services and products for an aggregate amount of approximately $4,602. Certain minimum purchase commitments related to the purchase of Jeuveau^® are described below.

License and Supply Agreement

Pursuant to the Daewoong Agreement, the Company has an exclusive distribution license to Jeuveau^® from Daewoong for aesthetic indications in the United States, European Union, Canada, Australia, Russia, Commonwealth of Independent States, and South Africa, as well as co-exclusive distribution rights with Daewoong in Japan. The Product is manufactured by Daewoong in a recently constructed facility in South Korea. The Company also has the option to negotiate first with Daewoong to secure a distribution license for any product that Daewoong directly or indirectly develops or commercializes that is classified as an injectable botulinum toxin (other than Jeuveau^®) in a territory covered by the Daewoong Agreement.

The Company held an option to obtain the therapeutic rights to Jeuveau^® in its licensed territories which was held in trust for Alphaeon during the fourth quarter of 2017 for a $2,500 reduction in related party borrowings. In September 2018, Alphaeon exercised the right to obtain the therapeutic option to Jeuveau^® and remitted the option exercise price directly to Daewoong.

In connection with the Daewoong Agreement, the Company was obligated to make milestone payments to Daewoong for certain confidential development and commercial milestones associated with Jeuveau^®. As of December 31, 2019, Daewoong is eligible to receive remaining contingent milestone payments of up to $10,500.

The Daewoong Agreement also includes certain minimum annual purchases the Company is required to make in order to maintain the exclusivity of the license. The Company may, however, meet these minimum purchase obligations by achieving certain market share in its covered territories. These potential minimum purchase obligations are contingent upon the occurrence of future events, including receipt of governmental approvals and the Company’s future market share in various jurisdictions.

Legal Proceedings

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into contracts and agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnifications. The Company’s exposure under these agreements is unknown because they involve claims that may be made against the Company in the future, but have not yet been made. The Company accrues a liability for such matters when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. No amounts were accrued as of December 31, 2019 and 2018.

Medytox Litigation

The Company, Daewoong and other individuals and entities are defendants to a lawsuit brought by Medytox, Inc. (“Medytox”) originally instituted in the Superior Court of the State of California in June 2017. With specific regard to the Company, Medytox alleges that (i) the Company has violated California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 because Daewoong’s alleged knowledge of the misappropriation of certain trade secrets of Medytox is imputed to the Company as a result of the Company’s relationship with Daewoong, (ii) the Company has stolen the botulinum toxin bacterial strain of Medytox through our possession of and refusal to return the botulinum toxin bacterial strain, (iii) the Company has engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices in violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, including conversion of the botulinum toxin bacterial strain and misrepresentations to the public regarding the source of the botulinum toxin bacterial strain used to manufacture Jeuveau^®, and (iv) the Daewoong Agreement is invalid and in violation of Medytox’s rights (the “Medytox Litigation”). Medytox seeks, among other things, (i) actual, consequential and punitive damages, (ii) a reasonable royalty, as appropriate, (iii) a declaration that the Daewoong Agreement is void and unenforceable and that Medytox is entitled to disgorgement of all property wrongfully and unjustly retained or acquired by the defendants, including unlawfully gained profits, (iv) injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from using the license under the Daewoong Agreement and distributing Jeuveau^®, and (v) attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend Medytox’s claims. The Company is unable to determine the likelihood of success of Medytox’s claims against the Company, and an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made. While the Company is entitled to indemnity under the Daewoong Agreement, the indemnity may not be sufficient. An adverse ruling by the Superior Court against either us or Daewoong could materially adversely affect the Company’s ability to carry out its business and which would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows and could also result in reputational harm.

ITC Case

On January 30, 2019, Allergan, plc and Allergan, Inc. (collectively, “Allergan”) and Medytox filed a complaint against us and Daewoong in the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), containing substantially similar allegations to the Medytox Litigation, specifically that Jeuveau^® is manufactured based on misappropriated trade secrets of Medytox and therefore the importation of Jeuveau^® is an unfair act. The ITC matter is entitled In the Matter of Certain Botulinum Toxin Products (the “ITC Complaint”). The ITC instituted an investigation as ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1145 (the “ITC Action”). The ITC Complaint seeks (i) an investigation by the ITC pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, (ii) a hearing with the ITC on permanent relief, (iii) issuance of a limited exclusion order forbidding entry of Jeuveau^® into the United States, (iv) a cease and desist order prohibiting Daewoong and us from engaging in the importations, sale for importation, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, the sale after the importation of, or otherwise transferring Jeuveau^® within the United States, (v) a bond issued during the presidential review period, (vi) the return of Medytox’s trade secrets and other confidential information including the alleged stolen botulinum toxin bacterial strain, and (vii) exclusion and cease and desist orders. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the proceedings. In January 2020, the three sets of parties to the ITC Action, (i) the Complainants - Allergan and Medytox, (ii) the Respondents - the Company and Daewoong and (iii) the OUII, each submitted pre-hearing briefs to the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the ITC Action setting forth each party’s positions on the substantive issues prior to the evidentiary hearing. From February 4-7, 2020, the Administrative Law Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the ITC Action. An initial determination by the Administrative Law Judge is due by June 5, 2020 and the target date for the final determination by the ITC is October 6, 2020. An adverse ruling by the ITC against either the Company or Daewoong could result in the imposition of an exclusion order which would bar imports of Jeuveau^® into the United States and a cease and desist order which would bar sales and marketing of Jeuveau^® within the United Sates either of which would materially adversely affect the Company’s ability to carry out its business and which would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows and could also result in reputational harm. Even if the Company is successful, the ITC Action may result in reputation damage or other collateral consequences.

Other Legal Matters

The Company, from time to time, is involved in various litigation matters or regulatory encounters arising in the ordinary course of business that could result in unasserted or asserted claims or litigation. These other matters may raise difficult and complex legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the facts and circumstances of each particular case or claim, the jurisdiction in which each suit or regulatory encounter is brought, and differences in applicable laws and regulations. Except as set forth above, the Company does not believe that these other matters would have a material adverse effect on its accompanying financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the resolution of one or more of the other matters in any reporting period could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial results for that period.