6.	Commitments and Contingencies

License Agreements

In September 2016, the Company entered into an exclusive license agreement with CRT Pioneer Fund LP (CPF) for worldwide rights, know-how and materials to develop SRA737, a small molecule inhibitor targeting Chk1, a promising therapeutic target to treat cancer. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company made a one-time upfront payment of $7.0 million to CPF in October 2016 and paid $2.0 million to CPF in January 2017 for the successful transfer of two ongoing Phase I clinical trials. The expense related to these payments was included in research and development for the year ended December 31, 2016. Additional milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $319.5 million may become payable to CPF upon the achievement of certain developmental, regulatory and commercial milestones, and will be accrued once they are considered probable of occurring. In addition, the Company is required to pay CPF, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, tiered high single-digit to low double-digit royalties on the net sales of any product successfully developed.

In May 2016, the Company entered into an exclusive license agreement (Carna License Agreement) with Carna Biosciences, Inc. (Carna) for worldwide rights to develop and commercialize SRA141, a small molecule kinase inhibitor targeting Cdc7. In exchange for this exclusive right, the Company paid Carna an upfront payment of $0.9 million in June 2016. The Company will be required to pay Carna milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $270.0 million upon achievement of certain developmental, regulatory and commercial milestone events, including a milestone payment of $4.0 million upon dosing of the first patient in the first Phase 1 clinical trial for SRA141. These milestones will be accrued once they are considered probable of occurring. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had not recorded any milestone payments to Carna. In addition, the Company is required to pay Carna tiered single-digit royalties on net sales of product candidates (as defined under the Carna License Agreement).

Lease Agreements

In February 2015, the Company entered into an operating lease agreement to sublease office space in Vancouver, Canada. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company issued a letter of credit to the sublessor on closing, which was collateralized by a restricted deposit. The operating lease agreement together with the restricted deposit expired on February 2018. In June 2017, the Company entered into a new operating lease agreement to continue leasing the office space in Vancouver, Canada commencing March 1, 2018. The new lease expires on February 28, 2023 and can be extended for an additional term of 5 years.

In January 2016, the Company entered into an operating lease agreement to lease office space near San Francisco, California. The operating lease agreement expires on April 30, 2019. In September 2017, the Company entered into a sublease agreement to sublet the premises to a third party until April 30, 2019. The fair value of the remaining contractual obligation, net of sublease income, was included in accrued liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2018.

In addition to base rent, these leases require payment of taxes and other operating costs. These operating costs are not included in the table below.

As of June 30, 2018, the aggregate future non-cancelable minimum lease payments associated with these operating leases are as follows:


Years Ending December 31:	Operating Leases
	(in thousands)
Remainder of 2018	$	219
2019		262
2020		216
2021		219
2022		175
Thereafter		—

Total (a)	$	1,091

(a)	Minimum lease payments have not been reduced by minimum sublease rentals of $0.1 million due in the future under sublease.

The total rent expense was $0.1 million and $0.2 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, and $0.2 million and $0.3 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017.

Legal

On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its executive officers (the New York Lawsuit). The New York Lawsuit was brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who purchased stock between July 15, 2015 and June 6, 2016. The New York Lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the New York Lawsuit with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes that the claims in the New York Lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is possible that additional similar lawsuits could be filed. Due to the early stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, at this point in time, the Company does not expect the outcome of these claims will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

On November 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and the underwriters for the Company’s initial public offering of its common stock. On February 9, 2017, a substantially identical putative class action suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class (the two lawsuits together, the California Lawsuits). The California Lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages and other relief. On August 1, 2018, all parties reached a mutually acceptable resolution to the California Lawsuits by way of a mediated settlement, which is subject to the parties’ execution of final settlement documents and the approval of the court. While the Company believes that the claims are without merit, it believes settlement will reduce the ultimate cost and distraction of further litigation. The Company does not expect its portion of the settlement amount to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

From time to time, the Company may become subject to other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Company may receive letters alleging infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights. The Company is not currently a party to any other material legal proceedings, nor is it aware of any pending or threatened litigation that, in the Company’s opinion, would have a material adverse effect on the business, operating results, cash flows or financial condition should such litigation be resolved unfavorably.