Commitments and Contingencies

Operating lease commitments

The Company leases its Corvallis, Oregon, facilities and office space under an operating lease, most recently amended in November 2012, which expires in 2017 and includes a renewal option for an extension of five years. This lease contains annual escalation clauses, renewal provisions and generally requires us to pay utilities, insurance, taxes and other operating expenses. Rental expense, including charges for maintenance, utilities, real estate taxes and other operating expenses, totaled $1.0 million, $827,000 and $737,000 for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2012 are expected to be as follows:



2013	$	866,098
2014	881,832
2015	901,500
2016	921,168
2017	940,836
Total	$	4,511,434

In January 2013, we entered into a sublease with an affiliate of M&F which is expected to commence in the first half of 2013 and to expire in 2020; rent payments under the sublease are not included in the above schedule. Refer to Note 9 for further description.

Other

In December 2006, PharmAthene, Inc. (“PharmAthene”) filed an action against SIGA in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court” or “Court of Chancery”) captioned PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 2627-N. In its amended complaint, PharmAthene asked the Court to order the Company to enter into a license agreement with PharmAthene with respect to ST-246, now also known as Arestvyr, to declare that the Company is obliged to execute such a license agreement, and to award damages resulting from the Company’s supposed breach of that obligation. PharmAthene also alleged that the Company breached an obligation to negotiate such a license agreement in good faith, and sought damages for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment based on supposed information, capital, and assistance that PharmAthene allegedly provided to the Company during the negotiation process. The Court tried the case in January 2011.

In September 2011, the Court issued its post-trial opinion. The Court denied PharmAthene’s requests for specific performance and expectation damages measured by the present value of estimated future profits. Nevertheless, the Court held that the Company breached its duty to negotiate in good faith and was liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court consequently awarded to PharmAthene what the Court described as an equitable payment stream or equitable lien consisting of fifty percent of the net profits that the Company achieves from sales of ST-246 after the Company secures $40 million in net profits, for ten years following the first commercial sale. In addition, the Court awarded PharmAthene one-third of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness expenses.

In May 2012, the Court entered its final order and judgment in this matter, implementing its post-trial opinion. Among other things, the final order and judgment provides that (a) net profits will be calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied consistently with how they are applied in the preparation of the Company’s financial statements, (b) the net profits calculation will take into account expenses relating to ST-246 commencing with the Company’s acquisition of ST-246 in August 2004, and (c) PharmAthene may recover $2.4 million of attorneys’ fees and expenses. As of December 31, 2012, SIGA has recorded a $2.5 million loss contingency with respect to the fee, expense and interest portion of the judgment.

In June 2012, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware the final order and judgment and certain earlier rulings of the Court of Chancery. Shortly thereafter, PharmAthene filed its cross-appeal. The Company obtained a stay of enforcement of the fee and expense portion of the judgment by filing a surety bond for the amount of the judgment plus post-judgment interest. The Company posted $1.3 million as collateral for the surety bond which is recorded in other assets as of December 31, 2012.

On July 27, 2012, the Company filed its opening brief on appeal, identifying the following points of error: (a) the Court of Chancery erred in holding that the Company breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith following the termination of the PharmAthene merger in 2006; (b) the Court of Chancery erred in holding that PharmAthene’s assistance enriched the Company and that PharmAthene is consequently entitled to relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel; (c) the Court of Chancery erred in awarding relief in the form of an equitable payment stream; and (d) the Court of Chancery erred in awarding PharmAthene a portion of its attorneys’ fees, expenses and expert witness costs.

On August 26, 2012, PharmAthene filed its opening brief, answering with respect to the Company’s appeal and arguing in support of PharmAthene’s cross appeal. With respect to the latter, PharmAthene claimed that the Court of Chancery erred in not finding that there was a binding license agreement and should have awarded either specific performance or expectation damages. On September 27, 2012, the Company filed its final brief in response. On October 8, 2012, PharmAthene filed its final brief in response. The oral argument on the appeal and cross-appeal was heard before the Supreme Court of Delaware, en banc, on January 10, 2013 and the Court took the arguments under advisement.

We expect that the Court of Chancery’s final order and judgment will have a materially adverse impact on the Company and its future results of operations unless the appeal and cross-appeal result in a materially positive change to the portion of the ruling awarding the equitable payment stream or equitable lien. The Company cannot assure success on the appeal and cross-appeal.

From time to time, the Company is involved in disputes or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that there is no dispute or litigation pending, except as discussed above, that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.