Commitments and Contingencies | 5. Commitments and contingencies Operating leases In September 2021, the Company entered into a lease agreement, as amended, for office and laboratory space located in San Jose, California. The lease commenced in September 2021 and has a 93-month term with two 60-month renewal options, which are not reasonably certain of being exercised. The Company also leases office space in Nashville, Tennessee, with a lease term that expires in March 2023. Variable lease payments are primarily comprised of common area maintenance. The ROU asset and corresponding lease liability for the Company’s operating leases were estimated using a weighted-average incremental borrowing rate of 7.7%. The weighted-average remaining lease term is 7.06 years. For the three months ended March 31, 2022, the Company incurred $0.5 million of operating lease costs. Variable lease payments for operating expenses and costs related to short-term leases were immaterial for the three months ended March 31, 2022 and March 31, 2021. As of March 31, 2022, undiscounted future minimum lease payments due under the non-cancelable operating leases are as follows: Operating leases (in thousands) Remainder of 2022 $ 1,103 2023 1,114 2024 1,081 2025 1,331 2026 1,372 Thereafter 3,607 Total minimum future lease payments 9,608 Present value adjustment for minimum lease commitments (2,302 ) Total lease liability $ 7,306 Legal and other contingencies The Company is involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business and may become involved in additional legal proceedings. Other than those listed below, the Company does not believe that any lawsuits or claims currently pending against it, individually or in the aggregate, are material or will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company may enter into settlement discussions, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders. Unless stated otherwise, the matters discussed below, if decided adversely or settled by the Company, individually or in the aggregate, may result in a liability material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is also subject to review from federal and state taxing authorities in order to validate the amounts of income, sales and/or use taxes which have been claimed and remitted. The Company has estimated exposure and established reserves for its estimated sales tax audit liability. In the normal course of business, the Company may agree to indemnify third parties with whom it enters into contractual relationships, including customers, lessors, and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed, under certain conditions, to hold these third parties harmless against specified losses, such as those arising from a breach of representations or covenants, other third-party claims that the Company’s products, when used for their intended purposes, infringe the intellectual property rights of such other third parties, or other claims made against certain parties. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of liability under these indemnification obligations due to the Company’s limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances that are likely to be involved in any particular claim. DOJ Investigation and Settlement. On September 21, 2021, the Company was informed that it was the target of a criminal investigation by the DOJ related to insurance reimbursement claims the Company submitted on behalf of its customers covered by various federal employee health plans under the FEHB program. The investigation also pertained to the Company’s role in customer reimbursement claim submissions to federal employee health plans. Additionally, the Company was the subject of an ongoing claims audit by an insurance company that is the Company’s largest third-party payor and was informed by such insurance company that the DOJ was the principal contact related to the subject matter of the audit. In addition to such audit, the Company has been subject to a number of other audits of insurance reimbursement claims submitted to additional third-party payors. One of these claims audits does not relate to claims submitted under the FEHB program. On January 4, 2022, the DOJ confirmed to the Company that the investigation had been referred to the Civil Division of the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas and the criminal investigation was no longer active. On April 29, 2022, the Company entered into a civil settlement agreement with the U.S. government that resolved the DOJ investigation, including allegations that the Company violated the False Claims Act by knowingly submitting or causing the submission of false claims for payment under the FEHB program during the period from February 1, 2021 through September 22, 2021. The settlement agreement provided for the payment by the Company of approximately $34.4 million to the U.S. government and resolved allegations that the Company submitted or caused the submission of claims for payment to the FEHB program using unsupported hearing loss-related diagnostic codes. As of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company recorded a $34.4 million settlement liability in the condensed consolidated balance sheets in connection with the settlement. The settlement amount was treated as consideration payable to a customer and was recorded as a reduction in revenue in the third quarter of 2021. On May 2, 2022, the Company paid the settlement amount. The settlement of the investigation may not resolve all of the audits of insurance reimbursement claims by additional third-party payors, and additionally the Company remains subject to a prepayment review of claims by the payor who conducted the Primary Audit. The Company will need to work with applicable third-party payors to establish processes Securities Class Action. Fazio v. Eargo, Inc., Christian Gormsen, & Adam Laponis. , No. 21-cv-07848 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021); Chung v. Eargo, Inc., Christian Gormsen, & Adam Laponis. , No. 21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021); IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan v. Eargo, Inc., Christian Gormsen, Adam Laponis, Josh Makower, Juliet Bakker, Peter Tuxen Bisgaard, Doug Hughes, Geoff Pardo, Nina Richardson, A. Brooke Seawell, David Wu, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, & William Blair & Company, L.L.C. , No. 21-cv-08747 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021). On October 6, 2021, putative shareholder Joseph Fazio filed a purported securities class action against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Fazio action”). Plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company’s disclosures about its business, operations, and prospects, including reimbursements from third-party payors, violated federal securities laws. Fazio voluntarily dismissed his complaint on December 6, 2021. On November 4, 2021, putative shareholder Alden Chung filed a substantially similar purported class action lawsuit (the “Chung action”). On November 10, 2021, putative shareholder IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan filed a similar purported class action, and also asserted claims under the federal securities laws against current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors”) and the underwriters of the Company’s October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common stock (the “IBEW action”). These class actions, which seek damages and other relief, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California . The Fazio and Chung actions were brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo securities between February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021. The IBEW Local 353 action was brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired: ( i ) Eargo shares in or traceable to the Company’s October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common stock; and/or (ii) shares of Eargo common stock between October 15, 2020 and September 22, 2021. On January 5, 2022, the court consolidated the foregoing class actions (as consolidated, the “Securities Class Action”) under the caption In re Eargo , Inc. Securities Litigation , No. 21-cv-08597-CRB, and appointed IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan and Xiaobin Cai as Lead Plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which purports to extend the class period through March 2, 2022, on May 20, 2022. Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss . The Company intends to vigorously defend the Securities Class Action and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigation. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of this matter and no assurance as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. Derivative Action. Wolfson v. Christian Gormsen, Joshua Makower, Douglas J. Hughes, Nina Louise Richardson, Katie J. Bayne, Peter Tuxen Bisgaard, A. Brooke Seawell, David Wu, and Eargo, Inc. , No. 21-cv-09342 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021). On December 3, 2021, putative shareholder Barbara Wolfson filed a derivative complaint purportedly on Eargo’s behalf against members of the Board of Directors and the Company as nominal defendant (the “Derivative Action”). Plaintiff asserts, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to implement and maintain an effective system of internal controls related to the Company’s financial reporting, public disclosures and compliance with laws, rules and regulations governing the business. Plaintiff purports to assert derivative claims on the Company’s behalf for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting. On March 1, 2022, the court entered the parties’ stipulation staying the Derivative Action until the anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action is decided. The defendants intend to vigorously defend the Derivative Action and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigation. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of this matter and no assurance |