Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Leases

The Company leases its administrative, research, and manufacturing facilities located in Irvine, California, and Santa Rosa, California and an administrative office located in Rosmalen, The Netherlands. These facility lease agreements require the Company to pay operating costs, including property taxes, insurance and maintenance. In addition, the Company has certain equipment under long-term agreements that are accounted for as operating leases.

Future minimum payments by year under non-cancelable leases with initial terms in excess of one year were as follows as of March 31, 2018:



Remainder of 2018	$	2,658
2019	3,661
2020	3,826
2021	3,701
2022	3,800
2023 and thereafter	18,021
Total	$	35,667

Facilities rent expense for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017 was $0.9 million and $0.9 million, respectively.

(b) Employment Agreements and Retention Plan

The Company has employment agreements with certain of its executive officers under which payment and benefits would become payable in the event of termination by the Company for any reason other than cause, death or disability or termination by the employee for good reason (collectively, an “Involuntary Termination”) prior to, upon or following a change in control of the Company. The severance payment will generally be in a range of six to twenty-four months of the employee’s then current salary for an Involuntary Termination prior to a change in control of the Company, and will generally be in a range of eighteen to twenty-four months of the employee’s then current salary for an Involuntary Termination upon or following a change in control of the Company.

We are from time to time involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature we believe are normal and incidental to a medical device business. These matters may include product liability, intellectual property, employment, and other general claims. Such cases and claims may raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the facts and circumstances of each particular case or claim, the jurisdiction in which each suit is brought, and differences in applicable law. We accrue for contingent liabilities when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or as additional information becomes available.

LifePort Sciences LLC v. Endologix, Inc.

On December 28, 2012, LifePort Sciences, LLC ("LifePort") filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, alleging that certain of the Company's products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,489,295, 5,676,696, 5,993,481, 6,117,167, 6,302,906, and 8,192,482, which were alleged to be owned by LifePort. On March 17, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement and Patent License Agreement with LifePort (the “Settlement Agreement”) whereby LifePort granted the Company license rights to patents in exchange for a settlement of $4.7 million. The Settlement Agreement resolved this litigation and fully and finally released the Company and LifePort from any claims arising out of or in connection with the litigation or the subject patents. The Settlement Agreement also contained a covenant not to sue for other patents owned by LifePort. However, since the subject patents were all expired and the Company was not currently using and has no plans to use the other patents owned by LifePort in products that could reach technological feasibility during the covenant not to sue period, there is no alternative future use and the full amount was recorded as settlement costs in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss.

Steven M. Ortiz v. Endologix, Inc.

On September 9, 2016, former employee Steven M. Ortiz filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in Orange County Superior Court, claiming the Company’s failure to pay all overtime wages owing; failure to provide meal periods and failure to pay meal period premiums; failure to pay all wages owed at time of termination seeking waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203; failure to provide accurate wage statements; violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and alleging claims for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. While the Company contests the allegations asserted in the litigation, a mediation was held on February 24, 2017 at which time the parties agreed to settle the case for $750,000. The court gave final approval to the settlement agreement and the $750,000 in settlement funds that were deposited with the Class Administrator have been distributed.

Stockholder Securities Litigation

In January 2017, two stockholders purporting to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company’s securities between August 2, 2016 and November 16, 2016, filed lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits allege that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operational and financial performance, in violation of federal securities laws, relating to U.S. Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval for the Company’s Nellix EVAS System. On May 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint extending the class period to include persons who purchased the Company’s securities between May 5, 2016 and May 18, 2017 and adding certain factual assertions and allegations regarding the Nellix EVAS System. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the alleged class, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs of litigation. The first lawsuit, Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-0017 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), was consolidated with the second lawsuit, Ahmed v. Endologix, Inc. et al, Case No. 8:17-cv-00061 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), and lead Nguyen plaintiff filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint. On December 5, 2017, the District Court granted Endologix’s motion to dismiss lead plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. On January 9, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and on March 12, 2018, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss lead plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Stockholder Derivative Litigation

Four shareholders have filed derivative lawsuits on behalf of Endologix, the nominal plaintiff, based on allegations substantially similar to those alleged by lead plaintiff in Nguyen. Those actions consist of: Sindlinger v. McDermott et al., Case No. BC662280 (Los Angeles Superior Court); Abraham v. McDermott et al., Case No. 30-2018-00968971-CU-BT-CSC (Orange County Superior Court); and Green v. McDermott et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01155-AB (PLAx), which has been consolidated with Cocco v. McDermott et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01183-AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.). The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

SEC Investigation

In July 2017, the Company learned that the SEC issued a Formal Order of Investigation to investigate, among other things, events surrounding the Nellix EVAS System and the prospect of its Food and Drug Administration (“FDA“) pre-market approval. The Company is fully cooperating with the investigation, but cannot predict its outcome or the timing of the investigation’s conclusion.