Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies The Company's principal commitments consist of obligations under its outstanding debt obligations, noncancelable leases for its office space, data centers and certain equipment and vendor contracts to provide research services, and purchase obligations under license agreements and reseller agreements. Related Party Promissory Note On January 4, 2016, the Company executed a $112,666 demand promissory note in favor of NantCapital to fund the acquisition of NaviNet. On May 9, 2016 and December 15, 2016, the Promissory Note with NantCapital was amended to provide that all outstanding principal and accrued interest is due and payable on June 15, 2022, and not on demand and the Company subordinated the Promissory Note in right of payment to the Convertible Notes (see Note 11). Indenture Obligations Under Convertible Notes On December 21, 2016, the Company entered into the Indenture relating to the issuance of the $107,000 Convertible Notes, by and between the Company and U.S. Bank National Association the Trustee. The interest rates are fixed at 5.50% per year, payable semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 of each year, beginning on June 15, 2017. The Convertible Notes will mature on December 15, 2021, unless earlier repurchased by the Company or converted pursuant to their terms (see Note 11). Purchase Obligations Under License Agreements and Reseller Agreements In September 2016, the Company entered into a Second Amended and Restated Reseller Agreement for genomic and proteomic sequencing services and related bioinformatics and analysis services with NantOmics, with an effective date of June 19, 2015 (see Note 19). Regulatory Matters The Company is subject to regulatory oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory authorities with respect to the development, manufacturing, and sale of some of the solutions. In addition, the Company is subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and related patient confidentiality laws and regulations with respect to patient information. The Company reviews the applicable laws and regulations regarding effects of such laws and regulations on its operations on an on-going basis and modifies operations as appropriate. The Company believes it is in substantial compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements could have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s business and operations. Legal Matters The Company is, from time to time, subject to claims and litigation that arise in the ordinary course of its business. The Company intends to defend vigorously any such litigation that may arise under all defenses that would be available to it. Except as discussed below, in the opinion of management, the ultimate outcome of proceedings of which management is aware, even if adverse to the Company, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Securities Litigation In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of our current or former executive officers and directors. These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. ("Deora") In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations in NantHealth’s IPO registration statement and in subsequent public statements. In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth’s business with the University of Utah, donations to the university by non-profit entities associated with the Company's founder Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer. The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1, 2016 through May 1, 2017. In March 2018, the court largely denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On July 30, 2019, the court certified the case as a class action. On October 23, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle to resolve the action on a classwide basis in the amount of $16,500 , which was included in accrued and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2019. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 31, 2020, and a hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for June 15, 2020. The $16,500 settlement was paid into a settlement fund prior to the payment deadline of March 2, 2020. The majority of the settlement amount was funded by the Company’s insurance carriers, and a portion was funded by the Company. The settlement is contingent upon certain matters, including final approval by the court. Also, the parties have the right to terminate the settlement in certain circumstances. In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to those in Deora. That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties have agreed to stay the case. The next case management conference is scheduled for July 31, 2020. The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. In April 2018, two putative shareholder derivative actions-captioned Engleman v. Soon-Shiong, Case No. 2018-0282-AGB, and Petersen v. Soon-Shiong, Case No. 2018-0302-AGB were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiff in the Engleman action previously filed a similar complaint in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, which was dismissed based on a provision in the Company’s charter requiring derivative actions to be brought in Delaware. The Engleman and Petersen complaints contain allegations similar to those in Deora but assert causes of action on behalf of NantHealth against various of the Company’s current or former executive officers and directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant. In July 2018, the court issued an order consolidating the Engleman and Petersen actions as in re NantHealth, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Lead C.A. No. 2018-0302-AGB, appointing Petersen as lead plaintiff, and designating the Petersen complaint as the operative complaint. On September 20, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. In October 2018, in response to the motion to dismiss, Petersen filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the defendants’ motion was held on September 25, 2019. On January 14, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed all claims except one claim against Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong for breach of fiduciary duty. Dr. Soon-Shiong and the Company filed answers to the amended complaint on March 30, 2020. In April 2018, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Shen v. Soon-Shiong was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint contains allegations similar to those in Deora but asserts causes of action on behalf of NantHealth against various of the Company’s current or former executive officers and directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, as well as alleged violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged misstatements or omissions in the Company’s 2017 proxy statement. The parties agreed to stay the case pending a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss in the derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The stay has been lifted due to the court’s January 14, 2020 decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. Real Estate Litigation On March 9, 2018, PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”) commenced an action against the Company in the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for Suffolk County. The action was originally captioned PayPal, Inc. v. NantHealth, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-0780-E. On April 10, 2018, the Superior Court transferred the case to its Business Litigation Section, where it is currently pending and captioned as PayPal, Inc. v. NantHealth, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-0780-BLS1. This action arises out of a Sublease Agreement that PayPal and the Company entered into on or about November 30, 2017. The Sublease Agreement pertained to commercial real estate that PayPal leased at One International Place in Boston, Massachusetts. On January 25, 2018, the Company notified PayPal that we were electing to terminate the Sublease Agreement. In its Verified Complaint, and a contemporaneous notice of default that the Company disputed, PayPal alleges that the Company breached the Sublease Agreement. In addition, PayPal asserts claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, sections 2 and 11, and seeks a declaratory judgment recognizing and enforcing the terms of the Sublease Agreement. Among other relief, PayPal seeks damages, treble damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On April 12, 2018, the Company filed its answer and jury demand in the action, denying liability. On August 2, 2018, PayPal requested a status conference with the court in order to discuss PayPal’s potential filing of a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A Rule 16 Litigation Control Conference (“Rule 16 Conference”) was held on August 22, 2018. During the Rule 16 Conference, the court denied PayPal’s request for leave to file a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Following the Rule 16 Conference, the court issued a tracking order setting deadlines and other procedures that would apply to this action. On September 26, 2018, the Company filed its Assented to Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer. The court granted the Company's motion on October 3, 2018. On October 9, 2018, the Company filed and served its amended answer and jury demand. On January 8, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to extend certain of the tracking order deadlines, which motion the court granted by endorsed order dated January 9, 2019. On April 4, 2019, PayPal filed a motion to add NantWorks, LLC as a defendant in the litigation, which motion was filed together with PayPal’s supporting memorandum, the Company’s opposition to that motion and PayPal’s reply. In its memorandum supporting that motion, PayPal stated that “PayPal’s damages are in excess of $3 M,” without further explanation as to its damages calculations. The court denied PayPal's motion on April 16, 2019. PayPal served a motion for summary judgment on June 5, 2019. In that motion, PayPal asserted that its actual damages are in excess of $2,300 , which it suggested the court should treble pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A. The Company served its opposition on July 12, 2019. PayPal responded with a reply to the Company’s opposition on July 18, 2019 and the fully briefed motion for summary judgment was filed that same day. The parties completed fact discovery on May 10, 2019 and completed expert discovery on August 22, 2019. A hearing on PayPal’s motion for summary judgment was held on October 17, 2019. At the hearing, the court indicated its intention to issue a written decision (1) granting PayPal’s motion for summary judgment regarding its claim for breach of the Sublease Agreement, as to liability only and not as to damages; (2) denying PayPal’s motion for summary judgment regarding its claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, sections 2 and 11; and (3) finding PayPal’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to be irrelevant or moot and denying its motion for summary judgment as to that claim. At the October 17, 2019 hearing, PayPal orally withdrew its claim for attorneys’ fees on its breach of the Sublease Agreement claim only and left uncertain whether it intends to pursue its claim for a declaratory judgment. On December 6, 2019, PayPal served a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would enjoin and restrain the Company, its officers, agents, attorneys and employees from transferring, conveying, or encumbering, or in any way attempting to pass out of their control any of the Company’s assets or property other than in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to cash, bonuses, and dividends. In the papers submitted in support of that motion, PayPal asserted that it has a strong likelihood of success in seeking to recover over $2,900 on its claim for breach of the Sublease Agreement, inclusive of pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate. On January 3, 2020, the Company served its opposition to PayPal’s motion for preliminary injunction. On January 9, 2020, PayPal served its reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction and filed all motion papers with the court. On January 23, 2020, the court issued its written Decision and Order regarding PayPal’s motion for summary judgment. In the Decision and Order, which was docketed on January 27, 2020, the court (1) granted PayPal’s motion for summary judgment regarding its claim for breach of the Sublease Agreement, as to liability only and not as to damages; (2) denied PayPal’s motion for summary judgment regarding its claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, sections 2 and 11; (3) denied PayPal’s motion for summary judgment regarding its claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, finding there was no need or basis to impose any additional liability on the Company for conduct that does not give rise to a cause of action independent of the underlying breach of contract claim; and (4) denied PayPal’s motion for summary judgment regarding its request for a declaratory judgment because it added little or nothing of substance to the relief PayPal is entitled to obtain, if at all. Based on the court’s January 23, 2020 Decision and Order, the issue of damages on PayPal’s claim for breach of the Sublease Agreement remains to be determined. The Company has asserted, among other things, that PayPal failed to mitigate any damages that PayPal claims the Company owes. PayPal’s claim for unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, sections 2 and 11, and its requests for treble damages and attorneys’ fees on that claim, as well as its requests for interest and costs on the breach of the Sublease Agreement and Chapter 93A claims, also remain to be determined. A hearing on PayPal’s motion for preliminary injunction was held on January 30, 2020. At the hearing, the court took the motion for preliminary injunction under advisement and scheduled the following: (1) a status conference on September 9, 2020; (2) a final trial conference on January 6, 2021; and (3) a jury trial start date on January 12, 2021. On February 24, 2020, the Company filed a Petition for Interlocutory Relief. The petition sought relief from the Decision and Order granting PayPal’s motion for summary judgment regarding its claim for breach of the Sublease Agreement as to liability only. On March 2, 2020, a single justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court denied the Company’s Petition for Interlocutory Relief. Starting in late January 2020, PayPal and its attorneys and brokers began producing additional documents that had not been produced during the fact discovery period. These supplemental productions continued through April 2020 and may be ongoing. The Company denies any liability to PayPal and intends to continue vigorously defending the action. Insurance Recoveries The Company has reflected its right to insurance recoveries, limited to the extent of incurred or probable losses, as a receivable when such recoveries have been agreed to with the Company’s third-party insurers and receipt is deemed probable. This includes instances where the Company’s third-party insurers have agreed to pay, on the Company’s behalf, certain legal defense costs and settlement amounts directly to applicable law firms and a settlement fund. The amount of such receivable related to the securities litigation recorded at March 31, 2020 and 2019 was $330 and $16,627 , respectively, and is included in prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets . |