Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Litigation
Litigation	6. Litigation Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines, penalties, and other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. On November 9, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Cima v. Dipp, No. 16‑3443‑BLS1 (Mass. Sup. Ct.)) against certain former officers and directors of OvaScience and one current director of the Company (a former director of OvaScience) and OvaScience as a nominal defendant alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste for purported actions related to OvaScience’s January 2015 follow-on public offering. On February 22, 2017, the court approved the parties’ joint stipulation to stay all proceedings in the action until further notice. Following a status conference in December 2017, the stay was lifted. On January 25, 2018, at the parties’ request, the court entered a second order staying all proceedings in the action until further order of the court. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and intends to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17‑cv‑10511‑IT (D. Mass.)) against OvaScience and certain former officers and directors of OvaScience alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Dahhan Action"). On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff, the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Company answered the amended complaint. The parties presently are engaged in discovery. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit and intends to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. On July 27, 2017, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Chiu v. Dipp, No. 1:17‑cv‑11382‑IT (D. Mass.)) against OvaScience, as a nominal defendant, certain former officers and directors of OvaScience and one current director of the Company (a former director of OvaScience) alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act alleging that compensation awarded to the director defendants was excessive and seeking redress for purported actions related to OvaScience’s January 2015 follow-on public offering and other public statements. On September 26, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which eliminated all claims regarding allegedly excessive director pay and additionally alleged claims of abuse of control and corporate waste. On October 27, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on April 5, 2018. On April 13, 2018, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Section 14(a). The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims without prejudice, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On April 25, 2018, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint, and to stay this case pending the outcome of the Dahhan Action. The Company does not believe that the proposed amended complaint cures the defects in the current complaint, but informed plaintiffs’ counsel that, in the interest of judicial economy, defendants would not oppose the proposed amendment if the court would consider staying the case pending the resolution of the Dahhan Action. On April 27, 2018, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and for a stay. On April 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. On May 23, 2018, the court entered an order staying this case pending the resolution of the Dahhan Action. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and intends to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. In addition to the matters described above, the Company may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business from time to time. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

6. Litigation

Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines, penalties, and other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

On November 9, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Cima v. Dipp, No. 16‑3443‑BLS1 (Mass. Sup. Ct.)) against certain former officers and directors of OvaScience and one current director of the Company (a former director of OvaScience) and OvaScience as a nominal defendant alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste for purported actions related to OvaScience’s January 2015 follow-on public offering. On February 22, 2017, the court approved the parties’ joint stipulation to stay all proceedings in the action until further notice. Following a status conference in December 2017, the stay was lifted. On January 25, 2018, at the parties’ request, the court entered a second order staying all proceedings in the action until further order of the court. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and intends to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17‑cv‑10511‑IT (D. Mass.)) against OvaScience and certain former officers and directors of OvaScience alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Dahhan Action"). On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff, the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Company answered the amended complaint. The parties presently are engaged in discovery. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit and intends to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.

On July 27, 2017, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Chiu v. Dipp, No. 1:17‑cv‑11382‑IT (D. Mass.)) against OvaScience, as a nominal defendant, certain former officers and directors of OvaScience and one current director of the Company (a former director of OvaScience) alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act alleging that compensation awarded to the director defendants was excessive and seeking redress for purported actions related to OvaScience’s January 2015 follow-on public offering and other public statements. On September 26, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which eliminated all claims regarding allegedly excessive director pay and additionally alleged claims of abuse of control and corporate waste. On October 27, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on April 5, 2018. On April 13, 2018, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Section 14(a). The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims without prejudice, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On April 25, 2018, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint, and to stay this case pending the outcome of the Dahhan Action. The Company does not believe that the proposed amended complaint cures the defects in the current complaint, but informed plaintiffs’ counsel that, in the interest of judicial economy, defendants would not oppose the proposed amendment if the court would consider staying the case pending the resolution of the Dahhan Action. On April 27, 2018, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and for a stay. On April 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. On May 23, 2018, the court entered an order staying this case pending the resolution of the Dahhan Action. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and intends to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.

In addition to the matters described above, the Company may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business from time to time. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.