Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Zimura - Archemix Corp. The Company is party to an agreement with Archemix Corp., or Archemix, under which the Company in-licensed rights in certain patents, patent applications and other intellectual property related to Zimura and pursuant to which the Company may be required to pay sublicense fees and make milestone payments (the "C5 License Agreement"). For each anti-C5 aptamer product that the Company may develop under the agreement, including Zimura, the Company is obligated to make additional payments to Archemix of up to an aggregate of $50.5 million if the Company achieves specified development, clinical and regulatory milestones, with $24.5 million of such payments relating to a first indication, $23.5 million of such payments relating to second and third indications and $2.5 million of such payments relating to sustained delivery applications. Under the C5 License Agreement, the Company is also obligated to make additional payments to Archemix of up to an aggregate of $22.5 million if the Company achieves specified commercial milestones based on net product sales of all anti-C5 licensed products. The Company is also obligated to pay Archemix a double-digit percentage of specified non-royalty payments the Company may receive from any sublicensee of its rights under the C5 License Agreement. The Company is not obligated to pay Archemix a running royalty based on net product sales in connection with the C5 License Agreement. IC-100 - University of Florida Research Foundation and the University of Pennsylvania Under its exclusive license agreement with UFRF and Penn for rights to IC-100, the Company is obligated to make payments to UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, of up to an aggregate of $23.5 million if the Company achieves specified clinical, marketing approval and reimbursement approval milestones with respect to a licensed product and up to an aggregate of an additional $70.0 million if the Company achieves specified commercial sales milestones with respect to a licensed product. The Company is also obligated to pay UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, a low single-digit percentage of net sales of licensed products. The Company is also obligated to pay UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, a double-digit percentage of specified non-royalty payments the Company may receive from any third-party sublicensee of the licensed patent rights. Further, if the Company receives a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher from the FDA in connection with obtaining marketing approval for a licensed product and the Company subsequently uses such priority review voucher in connection with a different product candidate, the Company will be obligated to pay UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, aggregate payments in the low double-digit millions of dollars based on certain approval and commercial sales milestones with respect to such other product candidate. In addition, if the Company sells such a priority review voucher to a third party, the Company will be obligated to pay UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, a low double-digit percentage of any consideration received from such third party in connection with such sale. IC-200 - University of Pennsylvania and the University of Florida Research Foundation Under its exclusive license agreement with Penn and UFRF for rights to IC-200, the Company is obligated to make payments to Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, of up to an aggregate of $15.7 million if the Company achieves specified clinical, marketing approval and reimbursement approval milestones with respect to one licensed product and up to an aggregate of an additional $3.1 million if the Company achieves these same milestones with respect to a different licensed product. In addition, the Company is obligated to make payments to Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, of up to an aggregate of $48.0 million if the Company achieves specified commercial sales milestones with respect to one licensed product and up to an aggregate of an additional $9.6 million if the Company achieves these same milestones with respect to a different licensed product. The Company is also obligated to pay Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, a low single-digit percentage of net sales of licensed products. The Company is also obligated to pay Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, a high single-digit to a mid-ten's percentage of specified non-royalty payments the Company may receive from any third-party sublicensee of the licensed patent rights, with the applicable percentage based upon the stage of development of the sublicensed product at the time the Company enters into the sublicense. Further, if the Company receives a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher from the FDA in connection with obtaining marketing approval for a licensed product and the Company subsequently uses such priority review voucher in connection with a different product candidate outside the scope of the agreement, the Company will be obligated to pay Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, aggregate payments in the low double-digit millions of dollars based on certain approval and commercial sales milestones with respect to such other product candidate. In addition, if the Company sells such a priority review voucher to a third party, the Company will be obligated to pay Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, a high single-digit percentage of any consideration received from such third party in connection with such sale. miniCEP290 Program - University of Massachusetts Under the miniCEP290 License Agreement, the Company is obligated to pay UMass up to an aggregate of $14.75 million in cash and issue up to 75,000 shares of common stock of the Company if the Company achieves specified clinical and regulatory milestones with respect to a licensed product. In addition, the Company is obligated to pay UMass up to an aggregate of $48.0 million if the Company achieves specified commercial sales milestones with respect to a licensed product. The Company is also obligated to pay UMass royalties at a low single-digit percentage of net sales of licensed products. If the Company or any of its affiliates sublicenses any of the licensed patent rights or know-how to a third party, the Company will be obligated to pay UMass a high single-digit to a mid-tens percentage of the consideration received in exchange for such sublicense, with the applicable percentage based upon the stage of development of the licensed products at the time the Company or the applicable affiliate enters into the sublicense. If the Company receives a priority review voucher from the FDA in connection with obtaining marketing approval for a licensed product, and the Company subsequently uses such priority review voucher in connection with a different product candidate outside the scope of the agreement, the Company will be obligated to pay UMass a low-tens percentage of the fair market value of the priority review voucher at the time of approval of such product candidate and a low-twenties percentage of the fair market value of the priority review voucher at the time of achievement of a specified commercial sales milestone for such product candidate. In addition, if the Company sells such a priority review voucher to a third party, the Company will be obligated to pay UMass a low-thirties percentage of any consideration received from such third party in connection with such sale. IC-500 - Former Equityholders of Inception 4 Under the Inception 4 Merger Agreement, the Company is obligated to make payments to the former equityholders of Inception 4 of up to an aggregate of $105 million, subject to the terms and conditions of the Inception 4 Merger Agreement, if the Company achieves certain specified clinical and regulatory milestones with respect to a product candidate from its HtrA1 inhibitor program, including IC-500, with $45 million of such potential payments relating to GA and $60 million of such potential payments relating to wet AMD. Under the Inception 4 Merger Agreement, the Company does not owe any commercial milestones or royalties based on net sales. The future milestone payments will be payable in the form of shares of the Company's common stock, calculated based on the price of its common stock over a five-trading day period preceding the achievement of the relevant milestone, unless and until the issuance of such shares would, together with all other shares issued in connection with the Inception 4 Merger, exceed an overall maximum limit of approximately 7.2 million shares, which is equal to 19.9% of the number of issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock as of the close of business on the business day prior to the closing date of the Inception 4 Merger, and will be payable in cash thereafter. The Inception 4 Merger Agreement also includes customary indemnification obligations to the former equityholders of Inception 4, including for breaches of the representations and warranties, covenants and agreements of the Company and its subsidiaries (other than Inception 4) in the Inception 4 Merger Agreement. Employment Contracts The Company also has letter agreements with certain employees that require the funding of a specific level of payments if certain events, such as a termination of employment in connection with a change in control or termination of employment by the employee for good reason or by the Company without cause, occur. Contract Service Providers In addition, in the course of normal business operations, the Company has agreements with contract service providers to assist in the performance of the Company’s research and development and manufacturing activities. Expenditures to CROs and CDMOs represent significant costs in preclinical and clinical development. Subject to required notice periods and the Company’s obligations under binding purchase orders and any cancellation fees that the Company may be obligated to pay, the Company can elect to discontinue the work under these agreements at any time. Legal Proceedings On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. IVERIC bio, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210. On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and the same group of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. IVERIC bio, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758. These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018. On June 4, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint (the “CAC”). The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 2, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the results of the Company’s Phase 2b trial and the prospects of the Company’s Phase 3 trials for Fovista in combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD. The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on July 27, 2018. On September 18, 2019, the court issued an order dismissing some, but not all, of the allegations in the CAC. On November 18, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On June 12, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On August 11, 2020, the defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to lead plaintiff's motion for class certification. This case is currently in the discovery phase. On February 7, 2018, a shareholder derivative action was filed against the members of the Company’s Board of Directors in the New York Supreme Court Commercial Division, captioned Cano v. Guyer, et al., No. 650601/2018. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by adopting a compensation plan that overcompensates the non-employee members of the Board relative to boards of companies of comparable market capitalization and size. The complaint also alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of the alleged conduct. The complaint purports to seek unspecified damages, on behalf of the Company, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, as well as an order directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this case on May 14, 2018. On June 4, 2018, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On June 25, 2018, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss this case. On December 3, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement that contemplates that the Company will adopt certain compensation-related governance reforms and does not obligate the defendants or the Company to pay any monetary damages. The court approved the settlement at a hearing on March 12, 2019. As part of the settlement, in April 2019 the Company paid $0.3 million in fees and costs to plaintiff's counsel. As contemplated by the settlement, the Company's board of directors adopted certain compensation-related governance reforms, including a non-employee director compensation policy, which its stockholders approved on May 15, 2019 at its 2019 annual meeting. On August 31, 2018, a shareholder derivative action was filed against current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and certain current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Luis Pacheco v. David R. Guyer, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07999. The complaint, which is based substantially on the facts alleged in the CAC, alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and wasted the Company's corporate assets by failing to oversee the Company's business, and also alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of the alleged conduct, including through receipt of bonuses, stock options and similar compensation from the Company, and through sales of the Company's stock between March 2, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The complaint purports to seek unspecified damages on the Company's behalf, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, as well as an order directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws, including submitting certain proposed amendments to the Company's corporate charter, bylaws and corporate governance policies for vote by the Company's stockholders. On December 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 19, 2019, the court denied its motion to dismiss this complaint. This matter was subsequently referred to a special litigation committee of the Company's board of directors. On February 18, 2020, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. The Company and the plaintiff agreed to stay this litigation while the special litigation committee conducts its investigation. On May 4, 2020, the court approved the stipulation and stayed the litigation through November 1, 2020. By agreement of the parties, the court has since extended the stay through March 13, 2021. The Company also entered into tolling agreements with the defendant directors to December 2021. On October 16, 2018, the Company’s board of directors received a shareholder demand to investigate and commence legal proceedings against certain members of the Company’s board of directors. The demand alleges facts that are substantially similar to the facts alleged in the CAC and the Pacheco complaint and asserts claims that are substantially similar to the claims asserted in the Pacheco complaint. On January 30, 2019, the Company’s board of directors received a second shareholder demand from a different shareholder to investigate and commence legal proceedings against certain current and former members of the Company’s board of directors based on allegations that are substantially similar to the allegations contained in the first demand letter. These shareholder demands have been referred to a demand review committee of the Company's board of directors. The Company has entered into tolling agreements with the directors named in the demands to December 2021. The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable, however, to predict the outcome of these matters at this time. Moreover, any conclusion of these matters in a manner adverse to the Company and for which it incurs substantial costs or damages not covered by the Company's directors’ and officers’ liability insurance would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and business. In addition, the litigation could adversely impact the Company's reputation and divert management’s attention and resources from other priorities, including the execution of its business plan and strategies that are important to the Company's ability to grow its business, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business.

The Company is party to an agreement with Archemix Corp., or Archemix, under which the Company in-licensed rights in certain patents, patent applications and other intellectual property related to Zimura and pursuant to which the Company may be required to pay sublicense fees and make milestone payments (the "C5 License Agreement"). For each anti-C5 aptamer product that the Company may develop under the agreement, including Zimura, the Company is obligated to make additional payments to Archemix of up to an aggregate of $50.5 million if the Company achieves specified development, clinical and regulatory milestones, with $24.5 million of such payments relating to a first indication, $23.5 million of such payments relating to second and third indications and $2.5 million of such payments relating to sustained delivery applications. Under the C5 License Agreement, the Company is also obligated to make additional payments to Archemix of up to an aggregate of $22.5 million if the Company achieves specified commercial milestones based on net product sales of all anti-C5 licensed products. The Company is also obligated to pay Archemix a double-digit percentage of specified non-royalty payments the Company may receive from any sublicensee of its rights under the C5 License Agreement. The Company is not obligated to pay Archemix a running royalty based on net product sales in connection with the C5 License Agreement.

Under its exclusive license agreement with UFRF and Penn for rights to IC-100, the Company is obligated to make payments to UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, of up to an aggregate of $23.5 million if the Company achieves specified clinical, marketing approval and reimbursement approval milestones with respect to a licensed product and up to an aggregate of an additional $70.0 million if the Company achieves specified commercial sales milestones with respect to a licensed product. The Company is also obligated to pay UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, a low single-digit percentage of net sales of licensed products. The Company is also obligated to pay UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, a double-digit percentage of specified non-royalty payments the Company may receive from any third-party sublicensee of the licensed patent rights. Further, if the Company receives a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher from the FDA in connection with obtaining marketing approval for a licensed product and the Company subsequently uses such priority review voucher in connection with a different product candidate, the Company will be obligated to pay UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, aggregate payments in the low double-digit millions of dollars based on certain approval and commercial sales milestones with respect to such other product candidate. In addition, if the Company sells such a priority review voucher to a third party, the Company will be obligated to pay UFRF, for the benefit of the Licensors, a low double-digit percentage of any consideration received from such third party in connection with such sale.

aggregate of an additional $3.1 million if the Company achieves these same milestones with respect to a different licensed product. In addition, the Company is obligated to make payments to Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, of up to an aggregate of $48.0 million if the Company achieves specified commercial sales milestones with respect to one licensed product and up to an aggregate of an additional $9.6 million if the Company achieves these same milestones with respect to a different licensed product. The Company is also obligated to pay Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, a low single-digit percentage of net sales of licensed products. The Company is also obligated to pay Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, a high single-digit to a mid-ten's percentage of specified non-royalty payments the Company may receive from any third-party sublicensee of the licensed patent rights, with the applicable percentage based upon the stage of development of the sublicensed product at the time the Company enters into the sublicense. Further, if the Company receives a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher from the FDA in connection with obtaining marketing approval for a licensed product and the Company subsequently uses such priority review voucher in connection with a different product candidate outside the scope of the agreement, the Company will be obligated to pay Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, aggregate payments in the low double-digit millions of dollars based on certain approval and commercial sales milestones with respect to such other product candidate. In addition, if the Company sells such a priority review voucher to a third party, the Company will be obligated to pay Penn, for the benefit of the Licensors, a high single-digit percentage of any consideration received from such third party in connection with such sale.

Under the miniCEP290 License Agreement, the Company is obligated to pay UMass up to an aggregate of $14.75 million in cash and issue up to 75,000 shares of common stock of the Company if the Company achieves specified clinical and regulatory milestones with respect to a licensed product. In addition, the Company is obligated to pay UMass up to an aggregate of $48.0 million if the Company achieves specified commercial sales milestones with respect to a licensed product. The Company is also obligated to pay UMass royalties at a low single-digit percentage of net sales of licensed products. If the Company or any of its affiliates sublicenses any of the licensed patent rights or know-how to a third party, the Company will be obligated to pay UMass a high single-digit to a mid-tens percentage of the consideration received in exchange for such sublicense, with the applicable percentage based upon the stage of development of the licensed products at the time the Company or the applicable affiliate enters into the sublicense. If the Company receives a priority review voucher from the FDA in connection with obtaining marketing approval for a licensed product, and the Company subsequently uses such priority review voucher in connection with a different product candidate outside the scope of the agreement, the Company will be obligated to pay UMass a low-tens percentage of the fair market value of the priority review voucher at the time of approval of such product candidate and a low-twenties percentage of the fair market value of the priority review voucher at the time of achievement of a specified commercial sales milestone for such product candidate. In addition, if the Company sells such a priority review voucher to a third party, the Company will be obligated to pay UMass a low-thirties percentage of any consideration received from such third party in connection with such sale.

Under the Inception 4 Merger Agreement, the Company is obligated to make payments to the former equityholders of Inception 4 of up to an aggregate of $105 million, subject to the terms and conditions of the Inception 4 Merger Agreement, if the Company achieves certain specified clinical and regulatory milestones with respect to a product candidate from its HtrA1 inhibitor program, including IC-500, with $45 million of such potential payments relating to GA and $60 million of such potential payments relating to wet AMD. Under the Inception 4 Merger Agreement, the Company does not owe any commercial milestones or royalties based on net sales. The future milestone payments will be payable in the form of shares of the Company's common stock, calculated based on the price of its common stock over a five-trading day period preceding the achievement of the relevant milestone, unless and until the issuance of such shares would, together with all other shares issued in connection with the Inception 4 Merger, exceed an overall maximum limit of approximately 7.2 million shares, which is equal to 19.9% of the number of issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock as of the close of business on the business day prior to the closing date of the Inception 4 Merger, and will be payable in cash thereafter. The Inception 4 Merger Agreement also includes customary indemnification obligations to the former equityholders of Inception 4, including for breaches of the representations and warranties, covenants and agreements of the Company and its subsidiaries (other than Inception 4) in the Inception 4 Merger Agreement.

In addition, in the course of normal business operations, the Company has agreements with contract service providers to assist in the performance of the Company’s research and development and manufacturing activities. Expenditures to CROs and CDMOs represent significant costs in preclinical and clinical development. Subject to required notice periods and the Company’s obligations under binding purchase orders and any cancellation fees that the Company may be obligated to pay, the Company can elect to discontinue the work under these agreements at any time.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. IVERIC bio, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210. On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and the same group of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. IVERIC bio, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758. These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018. On June 4, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint (the “CAC”). The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 2, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the results of the Company’s Phase 2b trial and the prospects of the Company’s Phase 3 trials for Fovista in combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD. The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on July 27, 2018. On September 18, 2019, the court issued an order dismissing some, but not all, of the allegations in the CAC. On November 18, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On June 12, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On August 11, 2020, the defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to lead plaintiff's motion for class certification. This case is currently in the discovery phase.

On February 7, 2018, a shareholder derivative action was filed against the members of the Company’s Board of Directors in the New York Supreme Court Commercial Division, captioned Cano v. Guyer, et al., No. 650601/2018. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by adopting a compensation plan that overcompensates the non-employee members of the Board relative to boards of companies of comparable market capitalization and size. The complaint also alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of the alleged conduct. The complaint purports to seek unspecified damages, on behalf of the Company, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, as well as an order directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this case on May 14, 2018. On June 4, 2018, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On June 25, 2018, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss this case. On December 3, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement that contemplates that the Company will adopt certain compensation-related governance reforms and does not obligate the defendants or the Company to pay any monetary damages. The court approved the settlement at a hearing on March 12, 2019. As part of the settlement, in April 2019 the Company paid $0.3 million in fees and costs to plaintiff's counsel. As contemplated by the settlement, the Company's board of directors adopted certain compensation-related governance reforms, including a non-employee director compensation policy, which its stockholders approved on May 15, 2019 at its 2019 annual meeting.

On August 31, 2018, a shareholder derivative action was filed against current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and certain current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Luis Pacheco v. David R. Guyer, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07999. The complaint, which is based substantially on the facts alleged in the CAC, alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and wasted the Company's corporate assets by failing to oversee the Company's business, and also alleges that the defendants

were unjustly enriched as a result of the alleged conduct, including through receipt of bonuses, stock options and similar compensation from the Company, and through sales of the Company's stock between March 2, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The complaint purports to seek unspecified damages on the Company's behalf, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, as well as an order directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws, including submitting certain proposed amendments to the Company's corporate charter, bylaws and corporate governance policies for vote by the Company's stockholders. On December 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 19, 2019, the court denied its motion to dismiss this complaint. This matter was subsequently referred to a special litigation committee of the Company's board of directors. On February 18, 2020, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. The Company and the plaintiff agreed to stay this litigation while the special litigation committee conducts its investigation. On May 4, 2020, the court approved the stipulation and stayed the litigation through November 1, 2020. By agreement of the parties, the court has since extended the stay through March 13, 2021. The Company also entered into tolling agreements with the defendant directors to December 2021.

On October 16, 2018, the Company’s board of directors received a shareholder demand to investigate and commence legal proceedings against certain members of the Company’s board of directors. The demand alleges facts that are substantially similar to the facts alleged in the CAC and the Pacheco complaint and asserts claims that are substantially similar to the claims asserted in the Pacheco complaint. On January 30, 2019, the Company’s board of directors received a second shareholder demand from a different shareholder to investigate and commence legal proceedings against certain current and former members of the Company’s board of directors based on allegations that are substantially similar to the allegations contained in the first demand letter. These shareholder demands have been referred to a demand review committee of the Company's board of directors. The Company has entered into tolling agreements with the directors named in the demands to December 2021.

The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable, however, to predict the outcome of these matters at this time. Moreover, any conclusion of these matters in a manner adverse to the Company and for which it incurs substantial costs or damages not covered by the Company's directors’ and officers’ liability insurance would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and business. In addition, the litigation could adversely impact the Company's reputation and divert management’s attention and resources from other priorities, including the execution of its business plan and strategies that are important to the Company's ability to grow its business, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business.