COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases and Sublease Agreements

California Office

San Diego Office

On September 8, 2014, the Company entered into a lease agreement for its corporate headquarters located in San Diego, California. The Company rents its office space for approximately $540,000 per annum plus escalations. The lease began on October 1, 2014 and expires on December 31, 2017.

Carlsbad Office - Vacated

In October 2014, Retrophin ceased use of this facility and all employees moved into the new headquarters facility in San Diego California. As a result of vacating this location, the Company recorded a loss of $170,811 in the year ended December 31, 2014. On March 27, 2015 the Company was able to sublease a portion of this facility for the remaining lease term. The Company is in a listing agreement with a broker to market the remaining Carlsbad space for sublease.

Massachusetts Office

On July 31, 2014, the Company entered into a sublease agreement for new office space located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Company rents its office space for approximately $815,000 per annum. The sublease expires on December 31, 2016.

New York Office

On December 30, 2015, the Company amended the lease agreement for its offices in New York, New York to extend the lease term through November 2018 and is responsible for approximately $550,000 per annum in rent plus escalations.

Contractual Commitments

The following table summarizes our principal contractual commitments, excluding open orders that support normal operations, as of December 31, 2015 (in thousands):



	Total		Less than 1 year		1-3 years		3-5 years		More than 5 years
Operating leases	$	2,671	$	1,026	$	1,645	$	—	$	—
Note payable	53,073		2,070		4,140		46,863		—
Sales support services	3,470		312		937		833		1,388
Product supply contracts	5,221		3,923		1,298		—		—
Purchase order commitments	596		258		338		—		—
	$	65,031	$	7,589	$	8,358	$	47,696	$	1,388

Legal Proceedings

On January 7, 2014, the Company sued Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Questcor”) in federal court in the Central District of California (Retrophin, Inc. v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. SACV14-00026-JLS). The Company alleged that Questcor violated antitrust laws in connection with its acquisition of rights to the drug Synacthen, and sought injunctive relief and damages. The Company asserted claims under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, section 7 of the Clayton Act, California antitrust laws, and California’s unfair competition law. On June 4, 2015, pursuant to the terms of a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) the Company and Questcor filed a Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing the Company’s lawsuit against Questcor. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Questcor paid the Company $15.5 million, recorded as “Litigation Settlement Gain” in 2015, and the Company and Questcor granted a mutual release of all claims against the other.

On June 13, 2014, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Schwab”) sued the Company, Standard Registrar and Transfer Company (“Standard”), Jackson Su (“Su”), and Chun Yi Huang (“Huang”) in federal court in the Southern District of New York (Charles Schwab & Co. v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4294). Su and Huang also asserted cross-claims against the Company and Standard for alleged negligent misrepresentation premised upon an alleged failure to inform them of restrictions on the sale of their Company stock, and impleaded Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP as a third-party defendant. Schwab’s claims have been dismissed with prejudice. On September 30, 2015, the Court dismissed Su and Huang’s cross-claims and third party claims. The dismissal was with prejudice with respect to Su, but without prejudice with respect to Huang. Huang did not seek leave to re-plead his claims within the time set by the Court. Accordingly, on November 10, 2015, the Court ordered the case to be closed.

On September 19, 2014, purported shareholders of the Company sued Martin Shkreli, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, in federal court in the Southern District of New York (Donoghue v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-7640). The Company is a nominal defendant in this action. The plaintiffs sought, on behalf of the Company, disgorgement of short-swing profits from Mr. Shkreli under section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78(p)(b)). The Court has approved a settlement between the parties, under which Mr. Shkreli is obligated to pay $2,025,000 to the Company and an additional $625,000 to Plaintiffs to compensate them for their legal fees. Shkreli has defaulted on the judgment and the Company and the Plaintiffs are taking steps to collect it. The Company has not recorded anything related the judgment for 2015. Any related amounts received will be recorded against equity when collected.

On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York against the same defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants’ public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013 through September 30, 2014. In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan filed a motion to appoint lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel, and to consolidate the two related actions. On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions, appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 4, 2015, which again named the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Mr. Panoff, and Mr. Paley as defendants, but which also named Steven Richardson, Stephen Aselage, and Cornelius Golding as additional defendants. On May 26, 2015, with the consent of the lead plaintiff, the court ordered that the claims against Mr. Paley be dismissed. The remaining defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which were fully-briefed as of October 29, 2015. On December 1, 2015, counsel jointly informed the Court that the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement, subject to Court approval. On January 29, 2016, the parties filed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and supporting papers, including a stipulation of settlement. On February 2, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for June 10, 2016. Any amounts owed by the Company would be covered by Director and Officer Insurance.

In January 2015, the Company received a subpoena relating to a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. The subpoena requested information regarding, among other things, the Company’s relationship with Mr. Shkreli and individuals or entities that had been investors in investment funds previously managed by Mr. Shkreli. The Company has been informed that it is not a target of the U.S. Attorney’s investigation, and is cooperating with the investigation. On December 17, 2015, an indictment against the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, Martin Shkreli, and its former outside counsel, Evan Greebel, was unsealed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Company has also been cooperating with a parallel investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). On December 17, 2015, the SEC filed a civil complaint against Mr. Shkreli, Mr. Greebel, MSMB Capital Management LLC, and MSMB Healthcare Management LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On August 17, 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit in federal district court for the Southern District of New York against Martin Shkreli, asserting that he breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty during his tenure as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and a member of its Board of Directors (Retrophin, Inc. v. Shkreli, 15-CV-06451(NRB)). On August 19, 2015, Mr. Shkreli served a demand for JAMS arbitration on Retrophin, claiming that Retrophin had breached his December 2013 employment agreement. In response to Mr. Shkreli’s arbitration demand, the Company has asserted counterclaims in the arbitration that are substantially similar to the claims it previously asserted in the federal lawsuit against Mr. Shkreli. The parties have selected an arbitration panel. On Mr. Shkreli’s application, and with the Company’s consent, the federal Court has granted a stay of the federal lawsuit pending a determination by the arbitration panel whether the Company’s counterclaims will be litigated in the arbitration, as the Company is seeking.

As of December 31, 2015 no accruals for loss contingencies have been recorded since these cases are neither probable nor reasonably estimable. From time to time the Company is involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes there is no other litigation pending that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition.

Under the Company's bylaws, current and former officers and directors may seek advancement for certain expenses, including attorneys’ fees. The Company has recently received a number of significant requests for advancement, and is in discussions about how much of the amounts sought the Company is obligated to pay. In addition, for certain of these amounts, the Company’s obligation to pay advancement is eligible for reimbursement under the Company’s insurance policies. Therefore, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of advancement currently sought from the Company that will ultimately be eligible for advancement, nor how much of the amounts eligible for advancement will be eligible for reimbursement under the Company’s insurance policies, and whether or not the amounts could be material.