Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company may become subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, it assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. In accordance with authoritative guidance, the Company records loss contingencies in its financial statements only for matters in which losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Where a range of loss can be reasonably estimated with no best estimate in the range, the Company records the minimum estimated liability. If the loss is not probable or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the nature of the specific claim if the likelihood of a potential loss is reasonably possible and the amount involved is material. The Company continuously assesses the potential liability related to the Company’s pending litigation and revises its estimates when additional information becomes available. The Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, other than as described below.

Stockholder Litigation

Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation

In March 2018, Leon Milbeck filed a putative securities class action complaint against the Company and certain of its then-current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation”). The complaint, as amended, sought an award of unspecified damages and other relief based on allegations that the defendants made false or misleading statements about our business, operations, prospects and performance during a purported class period of February 16, 2017 through November 6, 2017 in violation of applicable securities law in connection with the Company’s secondary offering of its common stock that occurred during the class period. On May 26, 2020, the case was dismissed pursuant to a settlement. As a result, the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation has been resolved.

Derivative Litigation

In August 2019, three purported stockholder derivative actions were filed in Delaware alleging a variety of claims nominally on the Company’s behalf arising out of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under Delaware law based upon substantially the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. The complaints named the Company, certain of its then-current and former directors and officers, USAA and, in one of the actions, certain entities affiliated with USAA as defendants. On October 7, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the cases into a single action (the “Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation”). On September 30, 2020, the court dismissed the Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation with prejudice for failure to make a pre-suit demand and failure to state a claim and the plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling. As a result, the Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation is resolved. Following the court’s decision, the plaintiffs sent a letter to the Company demanding that it pursue claims against certain current and former officers for various alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties, based substantially on the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. On November 18, 2020, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) established a special committee of the Board (the “Special Committee”) to investigate the claims contained in the Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation, the Lee Derivative Litigation (described below) and other related stockholder demands. In October 2021, following the aforementioned investigation, the Board adopted the Special Committee’s recommendation that the Board refuse the demands in their entirety and conclude that no further action is necessary. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September 30, 2022 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable.

Further, in December 2019, Sulgi Lee, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Lee Derivative Litigation”) alleging a variety of claims nominally on the Company’s behalf arising out of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under Delaware law based upon substantially the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. The complaint named the Company, certain of its then-current and former directors and officers and USAA as defendants. The plaintiff sought an award of damages against the defendants on the Company’s behalf and various alleged corporate governance reforms. Following the Board’s action on the Special Committee’s recommendation, which is described above, the plaintiff dismissed her claims against the Company on June 22, 2022. As a result, the Lee Derivative Litigation has been resolved and the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September 30, 2022 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable.

Employment Contracts

The Company has entered into employment contracts with certain executives of the Company. Employment under these contracts is at-will employment. However, under the provisions of the contracts, the Company would incur severance obligations of up to twelve months of the executive’s annual base salary for certain events such as involuntary terminations.

Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnities of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, investors, directors, officers, employees and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company’s breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company, or intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. While the Company’s future obligations under certain of these agreements may contain limitations on liability for indemnification, other agreements do not contain such limitations and under such agreements it is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under such indemnities have not had a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, the Company does not believe that any amounts that it may be required to pay under these indemnities in the future will be material to the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.