Commitments and Contingencies | 10. Commitmen ts and Contingencies Litigation In the normal course of business, the Company may be named as a defendant in one or more lawsuits. Other than as set forth below, the Company is not a party to any outstanding material litigation and management is currently not aware of any legal proceedings that, individually or in the aggregate, are deemed to be material to the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. On April 3, 2019, the Company filed two legal actions against, among others, Patrick Soon-Shiong and entities controlled by him, asserting claims for, among other things, fraud and breach of contract, arising out of Dr. Soon-Shiong’s purchase of the drug Cynviloq from the Company in May 2015. The actions allege that Dr. Soon-Shiong and the other defendants, among other things, acquired the drug Cynviloq for the purpose of halting its progression to the market. Specifically, the Company has filed: • An arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California against NantPharma, LLC (“NantPharma”) and Chief Executive Officer Patrick Soon-Shiong, related to alleged fraud and breaches of the Stock Sale and Purchase Agreement, dated May 14, 2015, entered into between NantPharma and the Company, filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015. On May 24, 2019, NantCell, Inc., Dr. Soon-Shiong and Immunotherapy NANTibody LLC (“NANTibody”) General Counsel Charles Kim filed a motion in the Los Angeles Superior Court to stay or dismiss the Company’s arbitration demand. On October 9, 2019, the Los Angeles Superior Court denied the motion to stay or dismiss the arbitration demand, and the arbitration is ongoing against NantPharma (“NantPharma Arbitration”). On March 5, 2020, the Company filed a legal action against Dr. Soon-Shiong in Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting claims for fraudulent inducement and common law fraud, arising out of Dr. Soon-Shiong’s purchase of the drug Cynviloq from the Company in May 2015. The action alleges that, among other things, Dr. Soon-Shiong acquired the drug Cynviloq for the purpose of halting its progression to the market. In connection with filing this civil action in the Los Angeles Superior Court, where the Company will have the right to a jury trial against Dr. Soon-Shiong, the Company has dismissed Dr. Soon-Shiong from the related, ongoing arbitration against NantPharma; and • An action in the Los Angeles Superior Court derivatively on behalf of NANTibody against NantCell, Inc., NANTibody Board Member and NantCell, Inc. Chief Executive Officer Patrick Soon-Shiong, and NANTibody officer Charles Kim, related to several breaches of the June 11, 2015 Limited Liability Company Agreement for NANTibody entered into between the Company and NantCell, Inc. The suit also alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and seeks, inter alia, a declaration that the Assignment Agreement entered into on July 2, 2017, between NantPharma and NANTibody is void and an equitable unwinding of the Assignment Agreement. The suit calls for the restoration of $ 90.05 million to the NANTibody capital account, thereby restoring the Company’s equity method investment in NANTibody to its invested amount as of June 30, 2017 of $ 40.0 million. On May 24, 2019, NantCell, Inc. and Dr. Soon-Shiong filed a cross-complaint against the Company and its President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Dr. Henry Ji, Ph.D., seeking unspecified damages, as well as additional punitive damages and specific performance, related to alleged fraud, alleged breaches of the Exclusive License Agreement for certain antibodies (dated June 11, 2015 and entered into between NANTibody, LLC and the Company), and alleged tortious interference with contract. On May 24, 2019, NANTibody and NantPharma filed a new complaint in the action against the Company and Dr. Ji, seeking unspecified damages, as well as additional punitive damages and specific performance, related to alleged fraud, alleged breaches of the Stock Sale and Purchase Agreement, alleged breaches of the Exclusive License Agreement for certain antibodies (dated April 21, 2015 and entered into between NantCell, Inc. and the Company), and alleged tortious interference with contract. On July 8, 2019, the Company and Dr. Ji filed motions to compel the cross-complaint and new action to arbitration. On October 9, 2019, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted the motions to compel to arbitration all of the claims brought by NANTibody, NantCell, Inc. and NantPharma, and denied the motions to compel as to the claims brought by Dr. Soon-Shiong. Subsequently, NANTibody, NantCell, Inc., and NantPharma re-filed their claims in arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. On May 4, 2020, the Company filed counterclaims against NANTibody and NantPharma related to breaches of the April 21, 2015 and June 11, 2015 Exclusive License Agreements. With the counterclaims, the Company is seeking money damages in an amount yet to be determined. On August 2, 2022, Sorrento, NantCell and NANTibody presented closing arguments in the arbitration concerning the parties’ claims and counterclaims under the April 21, 2015 and June 11, 2015 Exclusive License Agreements, a decision on which is currently pending. The claims asserted in the NantPharma Arbitration have been submitted to the arbitrator for a decision. The Los Angeles Superior Court claims against Dr. Soon-Shiong have been stayed pending resolution of the claims filed in arbitration. The original derivative action is no longer stayed, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery in the suit. On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical Holdings filed a putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the Company, Dr. Ji, and its SVP of Regulatory Affairs, Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D. The action alleges that the Company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees. On June 11, 2020, Jeannette Calvo filed a second putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG, against the same defendants alleging the same claims and seeking the same relief. On February 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order consolidating the cases and appointing a lead plaintiff, Andrew Zenoff (“Plaintiff”), and lead counsel. On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in accordance with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California’s scheduling order. Pursuant to that scheduling order, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 20, 2021 and Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on July 2, 2021. The defendants’ reply was filed on August 4, 2021. On or about November 18, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On December 30, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on February 7, 2022, and the defendants filed their reply on February 28, 2022. On April 11, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022. On June 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the case. On June 3, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and the case was closed. On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 22-55641). On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff/Appellant filed an opening brief. The defendants/appellees’ answering brief is due on December 2, 2022. Appellant may also file an optional reply brief within 21 days of appellees’ answering brief. The Company is defending these matters vigorously. On July 26, 2021, Sachin Chaudhari filed a verified stockholder derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 0723211, against Dr. Ji, Dr. Brunswick, and the Company’s Board of Directors as defendants, and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The action alleges, among other things, that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, engaged in waste and were unjustly enriched in connection with the alleged false and misleading statements referenced above. The suit seeks to recover on behalf of the Company those damages caused by the alleged breaches of duty and related claims, along with the plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees. On July 27, 2021, Michael Sabatina filed a verified stockholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2021-0654 against Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick as defendants and against the Company as a nominal defendant alleging the same general claims and seeking the same general relief. Both of these derivative cases have been stayed by their respective courts pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the federal securities class action described above. The Company is defending these matters vigorously. Operating Leases Supplemental quantitative information related to leases includes the following ($ in thousands): Three Months Ended September 30, Nine Months Ended September 30, 2022 2021 2022 2021 Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities: Operating cash outflows from operating leases $ 3,615 $ 3,208 $ 9,761 $ 8,081 ROU assets obtained in exchange for new and amended operating lease liabilities $ 1,505 $ 39,967 $ 3,567 $ 40,141 Weighted average remaining lease term in years 14.2 15.5 14.2 15.5 Weighted average discount rate 12.8 % 12.8 % 12.8 % 12.8 % Maturities of lease liabilities were as follows (in thousands): Years ending December 31, Operating 2022 (Remaining three months) $ 3,673 2023 14,871 2024 14,851 2025 13,904 2026 13,574 2027 13,788 Thereafter 152,715 Total lease payments 227,376 Less imputed interest ( 129,870 ) Total lease liabilities as of September 30, 2022 $ 97,506 |