Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies Lease commitments In May 2019, the Company entered into a lease extension for office and laboratory space through February 2025. The Company also has a lease for additional office space through February 2020. The right to use asset and lease liability were calculated using an incremental borrowing rate of 8.25% and 10% , respectively. For the three months ended June 30, 2019 and 2018 rent expense was $0.3 million and $0.4 million , respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2019 and 2018 rent expense was $0.7 million and $0.8 million , respectively. In March 2019, the Company entered into a sublease agreement for a portion of the office space lease through February 2020. Since the Company retained its obligations under the sublease, it did not adjust the lease liability, however the sublease is being reflected as a reduction of lease expense. Maturities of lease liabilities are as follows (in thousands): June 30, 2019 2019 $ 821 2020 1,477 2021 1,474 2022 1,510 2023 and thereafter 3,401 Total lease payments 8,683 Less imputed interest (1,777 ) Total $ 6,906 At June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 , the Company has an outstanding letter of credit of $0.3 million with a financial institution related to a security deposit for the office and lab space lease, which is secured by cash on deposit and expires on February 28, 2025. Litigation Pending Litigation: Emerson v. Genocea Biosciences et al. , U.S. District Court (Mass.), Civil Action No. 17-cv-12137-PBS (the “ Emerson Action”). In 2017, three purported shareholders filed placeholder complaints against Genocea and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s disclosures related to GEN-003, a Phase 3-ready investigational immunotherapy for the treatment of genital herpes infections. On February 12, 2018, the Court appointed the Genocea Investor Group (a group of five purported shareholders) as lead plaintiff in the consolidated proposed class action, and appointed Scott+Scott LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, and Block & Leviton LLP as lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 29, 2018. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2018. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018, as well as a motion to strike certain documents attached to defendants’ motion to dismiss, on June 29, 2018. Defendants filed a reply in further support of the dismissal motion, and an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to strike, on July 30, 2018. The court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss and motion to strike on September 25, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and, because the court’s decision did not consider the documents plaintiffs sought to strike, did not rule on plaintiffs’ motion to strike. On January 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the District of Massachusetts to appeal the court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. The appeal, captioned Yuksel v. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., et al. , U.S. Court of Appeal for the First Circuit, Case No. 19-1036, was docketed in the First Circuit on January 15, 2019. By order dated January 29, 2019, the First Circuit set a deadline of March 11, 2019 for plaintiffs’ opening brief. Shortly thereafter, however, plaintiffs made a settlement offer to defendants, and the parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement and general release on April 22, 2019. In connection with the settlement agreement, the parties fully and finally resolved the Emerson Action, including the entry of a general release, and plaintiffs agreed to request a voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). On May 9, 2019, plaintiffs filed the voluntarily dismissal motion. The Court dismissed the Emerson Action on May 23, 2019. Kahr v. William Clark et al. , U.S. District Court (Del.), Civil Action No. 18-cv-00186-MN. On January 31, 2018, Barry Kahr, a purported Genocea shareholder, filed a putative shareholder derivative complaint against certain of the Company’s officers and directors (including certain former officers and directors), naming the Company as the nominal defendant. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 in connection with disclosures made in the Company’s Schedule 14A Proxy Statement, filed with the SEC on April 21, 2017. The complaint also alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. On May 1, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order agreeing to stay the action until, inter alia , the entry of an order granting or denying any motion to dismiss the Emerson Action. On May 9, 2018, the court entered the joint stipulation agreeing to stay the action. On August 10, 2018, the parties, along with the plaintiff from the Howard action, detailed below, filed a joint stipulation and proposed order agreeing to, inter alia , consolidate the Kahr and Howard actions into an action captioned In re Genocea Biosciences, Inc. Derivative Litigation , U.S. District Court (Del.), Civil Action No. 18-cv-00186-MN (the “Genocea Consolidated Derivative Action”). The joint stipulation also proposed to stay the consolidated action pursuant to the same terms as the stay order entered in Kahr , and allow the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Gainey McKenna & Egleston to serve as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On August 24, 2018, the court entered the joint stipulation agreeing to consolidate the Kahr and Howard actions, and stay the Genocea Consolidated Derivative Action. On February 4, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order agreeing to extend the stay order until, inter alia , the resolution of the First Circuit appeal in the Emerson Action. On February 5, 2019, the court entered the joint stipulation agreeing to extend the stay. However, following the dismissal of the Emerson action, the plaintiff from the Kahr action, along with the plaintiff from the Howard action, detailed below, voluntarily dismissed the Genocea Consolidated Derivative Action on July 1, 2019. The court closed the Kahr action on July 1, 2019. Howard v. William Clark et al. , U.S. District Court (Del.), Civil Action No. 18-cv-00912-MN. On June 20, 2018, Julie Howard, a purported Genocea shareholder, filed a putative shareholder derivative complaint against certain of the Company’s officers and directors (including one former officer), naming the Company as the nominal defendant. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 in connection with disclosures made in the Company’s Schedule 14A Proxy Statement, filed with the SEC on April 21, 2017. The complaint also alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. As detailed above, the Howard action was consolidated with the Kahr action into the Genocea Consolidated Derivative Action, which the court stayed until, inter alia , the resolution of the First Circuit appeal in the Emerson Action. Following the dismissal of the Emerson action, however, the plaintiff from the Kahr action voluntarily dismissed the Genocea Consolidated Derivative Action on July 1, 2019. The court closed the Howard action on July 1, 2019. |