COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Lease Agreements

The Company records rent expense under its lease agreements on a straight-line basis. Differences between actual lease payments and rent expense recognized under these leases results in a deferred rent asset or a deferred rent liability at each reporting period.

The Company currently leases 106,000 square feet of office and laboratory space located in two buildings on adjacent properties in South San Francisco (“SSF”), California. The term of the current lease will end in January 2018. This lease agreement includes scheduled rent increases over the lease term, and the Company was required to provide the landlord with letters of credit amounting to $0.7 million, which was recorded to restricted certificates of deposit in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015. In addition, the landlord will reimburse the Company up to $1.6 million of improvements to the leased property, subject to certain requirements. This reimbursement is considered a lease incentive and shall be recognized as a deferred lease incentive liability and recognized as a reduction of rent expense by the Company on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable operating leases are as follows as of December 31, 2015 (in thousands):



2016	$	4,400
2017	4,527
2018	366
Total minimum lease payments	$	9,293

Rent expense was $10.7 million, $10.5 million and 7.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Contractual Obligations—The Company has various manufacturing, research, and other contracts with vendors in the conduct of the normal course of its business. All contracts are terminable with varying provisions regarding termination. If a contract with a specific vendor were to be terminated, the Company would only be obligated for the products or services that the Company had received at the time the termination became effective.

Guarantees and Indemnifications—The Company makes certain indemnities, commitments, and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The duration of these indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover all or a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has not recorded any liability for these indemnities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. However, the Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable. No such losses have been recorded to date.

Legal Matters—The Company may be involved, from time to time, in legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company accrues amounts, to the extent they can be reasonably estimated, that it believes are adequate to address any liabilities related to legal proceedings and other loss contingencies that the Company believes will result in a probable loss that is reasonably estimable.

Securities Class Action Litigation

In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed against the Company, its CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by the Company’s joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renovaveis Ltda. In October 2015, the lead plaintiff was selected in the action and an amended complaint was filed on December 15, 2015. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the action on February 12, 2016 that it expects to be heard in May 2016. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Derivative Litigation

In July 2015, a complaint entitled Jim Bertonis, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan Wolfson et al. was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company from certain of its current and former directors and officers and alleges these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and unjustly enriched themselves by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. This purported stockholder derivative action is based on substantially the same facts as the securities class action described above. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf.

In August 2015, a complaint entitled Gregory M. Miller, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan S. Wolfson et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company from certain of its current and former directors and officers and alleges these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and aided and abetted the Company in making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. This purported stockholder derivative action is based on substantially the same facts as the securities class action and derivative action described above. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf.

Roquette Frères, S.A.

In September 2013, an arbitration (the “Roquette Arbitration”) was initiated with Roquette Frères, S.A. (“Roquette”) in connection with the dissolution of a joint venture between the Company and Roquette known as Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals L.L.C. (“SRN”). The Company sought a declaration that, in accordance with the terms of the joint venture agreement between the parties, the Company should be assigned all improvements made by or on behalf of SRN to the Company’s intellectual property. On February 19, 2015 the arbitration panel released its decision, ordering, inter alia, the assignment to the Company of (i) all SRN patent applications, (ii) all SRN know-how related to high lipid algae flour and high protein algae powder and (iii) all Roquette patent applications filed since November 2010 relating to algae food and food ingredients, as well as methods for making and using them. In addition, the arbitration panel ordered Roquette to pay to the Company, $2.3 million in legal costs and fees. The arbitration award was confirmed by order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on December 21, 2015. Roquette has appealed the confirmation of the arbitration award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Pending this appeal, the confirmation of the arbitration award has been stayed by order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by order dated January 12, 2016, in which the Court granted not only a stay but also enjoined Roquette from pursuing any further commercialization of any technology arguably within the ambit of the arbitral decision, including the sale of products. The Company expects the appeal of the confirmation of the arbitration award to be heard later in 2016.

In November 2014, Roquette filed an action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette seeks a declaration that (i) the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration exceeded their authority by failing to render a timely arbitration award, (ii) any award issued by the arbitrators is void and (iii) all intangible assets of SRN should be assigned jointly to Roquette and the Company. Other than seeking its attorney fees and costs in the action, Roquette did not make any monetary claims against the Company. The Company filed an Answer to the Complaint in January 2015, denying substantially all of Roquette’s claims and all of its prayers for relief.

In February 2015 Roquette filed a second action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette sought a declaration that (A) the order of the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration for more discovery and new hearings was unenforceable and (B) in the alternative, the proposed new discovery and hearings concerned an issue that was outside the scope of the arbitration. Other than seeking its attorney fees and costs in the action, Roquette did not make any monetary claims against the Company. The two Delaware actions were consolidated in February 2015. The Company filed its Answer to the second Complaint on February 26, 2015, denying all claims made in the Complaint and all related prayers for relief. In addition, the Company cross-claimed for (x) confirmation of the arbitration award, (y) an order compelling Roquette to comply with the arbitration award and (z) damages for misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets, misuse of the Company’s confidential information and breach of contract. In April 2015 Roquette filed motions for summary judgment in each of the two declaratory judgment actions commenced by Roquette and a motion to vacate the award rendered in the Roquette Arbitration, which included counterclaims alleging the Company misused certain Roquette trade secrets. The summary judgment motions made by Roquette were denied in an opinion of the court dated December 21, 2015. All further proceedings under the declaratory actions have been stayed pending the Third Circuit appeal described above.

Therabotanics, LLC and Solabotanics, LLC

In July 2012, a complaint was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court by Therabotanics, LLC and Solabotanics, LLC against the Company, Sephora USA, Inc. and the Company's Senior Vice President Frederic Stoeckel alleging various causes of action in connection with the Company’s joint venture with Therabotanics. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misappropriated assets of the joint venture and failed to produce an infomercial with the joint venture. The Plaintiffs claimed unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In June 2013, the Company filed an Answer in which it denied each and every allegation made by the Plaintiffs in their Complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against Therabotanics and certain named individuals. In January 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in which the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jonathan Wolfson, and Sephora, S.A. were added as additional defendants. In September 2014 the parties agreed to settle the litigation in exchange for a settlement payment from the Company to Therabotanics of $4.8 million, which was paid in October 2014. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company recorded $4.8 million of litigation expense to sales, general and administrative expenses in its consolidated statements of operations. As part of the settlement the Company denied all claims made by the Plaintiffs and all parties granted releases to all other parties. The Company maintains corporate insurance and the insurer reimbursed a portion of both the litigation settlement and external legal fees in the amount of $0.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company may be involved, from time to time, in additional legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingencies involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matters individually and in the aggregate will be resolved in a manner that would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.