15.	Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

From time to time, we are a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of its business. On July 28, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain of its current and former executives, captioned Mahoney v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-11394. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions when providing 2015 financial guidance. The lawsuit seeks among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in connection with the Company’s allegedly inflated stock price between February 26, 2014 and November 3, 2015, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On December 22, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning providing 2015 financial guidance and other statements during the class period concerning demand and reimbursement for certain of the Company’s tests. On February 20, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which plaintiffs opposed on April 23, 2018. On June 7, 2018, defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss. The court has not yet scheduled oral argument on defendants’ motion to dismiss. We believe this case is without merit and, therefore, continue to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations.

On July 10, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint, Wang v. Foundation Medicine, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-11435, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by purported Company shareholder Elaine Wang against the Company and the Company’s directors in connection with the offer by Roche to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock (the “Offer”). An amended complaint (the “Wang Complaint”) was filed on July 11, 2018 against the Company, the Company’s directors and Roche. The Wang Complaint alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company on July 2, 2018 in connection with the Offer omitted certain supposedly material information concerning (1) communications regarding the positions of the Company’s directors and officers following the transactions, (2) communications regarding compensation to be paid to the Company’s directors and officers in connection with the transactions, and (3) compensation received by Goldman Sachs in connection with the Company’s initial public offering and Roche Holdings’ 2015 investment in the Company. The Wang Complaint asserted claims against all the defendants for violation of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and against the Company’s directors and Roche Holdings for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Wang Complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, dismissing the case with prejudice.

On July 11, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint, Kent v. Foundation Medicine, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-01028 (the “Kent Complaint”), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by purported Company shareholder Michael Kent against the Company, the Company’s directors and Roche in connection with the Offer. The Kent Complaint alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company on July 2, 2018 in connection with the Offer omitted certain supposedly material information concerning (1) communications regarding the positions of the Company’s directors and officers following the transactions and (2) compensation received by Goldman Sachs in connection with the Company’s initial public offering and Roche Holdings’ 2015 investment in the Company. The Kent Complaint asserted claims against all the defendants for violation of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and against the Company’s directors and Roche for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Kent Complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, dismissing the case without prejudice.