6. Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

As of December 31, 2017, the Company leases office facilities under non‑cancelable operating lease agreements. The Company currently occupies approximately 113,000 square feet of laboratory and office space at its San Carlos, California corporate headquarters pursuant to a lease that it directly entered into with its landlord in October 2016. This lease covers two office spaces (the “First Space and the “Second Space”). The First Space covers approximately 88,000 square feet at a base rent of $319,095. The Second Space covers approximately 25,000 square feet at a base rent of $97,431 per month. The Company paid a security deposit totaling $0.7 million on this lease. The term of this lease is approximately 84 months and expires in October 2023.

In October 2016, the Company entered into a sublease for additional office space in Redwood City, California that covers approximately 13,000 square feet. The lease term of the additional space began in November 2016 and carried a monthly base rent of $49,140, subject to an annual increase of 3%, with a security deposit of $0.1 million. The term of this sublease is approximately 28 months and expires in February 2019.

In September 2015, the Company’s subsidiary entered into a long-term lease agreement for laboratory and office space totaling approximately 94,000 square feet in Austin, Texas. The lease term is 132 months beginning in December 2015 and expiring in November 2026 with monthly payments beginning in December 2016, increasing from $0.1 million to $0.2 million. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the subsidiary paid a security deposit of $0.4 million, and the landlord allotted the subsidiary an allowance for leasehold improvements of up to $7.8 million. As of December 31, 2017, the full amount of the allowance has been reimbursed by the landlord.

The future annual minimum lease payments under all non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2017 are as follows:


	Operating Leases
	(in thousands)
Year ending December 31:
2018	$	8,034
2019		8,547
2020		8,675
2021		8,913
2022		9,160
2023 and thereafter		14,737
Total future minimum lease payments	$	58,066

Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $7.2 million, $5.4 million and $2.7 million, respectively. The Company is also required to pay its share of facility operating expenses with respect to the facilities in which it operates.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions. The Company is aggressively defending its current litigation matters, and while there can be no assurances and the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges.

In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could adversely affect gross margins in future periods. If this were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, if any, which could result in the need to record or adjust a liability and record additional expenses. During the periods presented, the Company has not recorded any accrual for loss contingencies associated with such legal proceedings, determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible, or determined that the amount or range of any possible loss is reasonably estimable, except for the amount accrued in connection with the settlement agreement with the United States Department of Justice described below.

On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the “San Mateo Superior Court”), against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company’s July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company’s IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company’s business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed, or held, pending the appeal. The Company also filed a demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017. The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without leave to re-file. The San Mateo Superior Court granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file prior to November 24, 2017. Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 25, 2018. The Company intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome.

On March 4, 2016, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, by a patient alleging that Natera failed to perform a carrier screening test that was ordered. The complaint seeks compensatory damages. On May 26, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. The matter is set for trial in March 2018. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims in this lawsuit, and assert any counterclaims that may be available to it. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome.

On December 12, 2015, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the United States Department of Justice in connection with a qui tam action related to past reimbursement submissions for some of its testing. The qui tam action was originally filed under seal by the relators on January 26, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The qui tam complaint alleged that Natera submitted false claims to government health care programs for its testing services performed during the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016, and sought damages and penalties. The complaint was unsealed on February 8, 2018. On March 7, 2018, the Company reached agreement with the United States Department of Justice to resolve all claims made against it in the action. Under the settlement agreement, the Company will pay a total of approximately $11.4 million to the federal government and the participating state Medicaids, of which approximately $5.3 million plus applicable interest will be paid in four equal quarterly installments, subject to the Company’s option to prepay without penalty. In exchange for the payment of the settlement amounts, the United States and the relators agreed to release the Company from certain claims, including civil or administrative monetary relief sought under the complaint. The settlement agreement does not contain or represent an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company, and there will be no corporate integrity agreement. For the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recorded a charge of $11.4 million associated with this settlement in its statements of operations and comprehensive loss. As of December 31, 2017, the Company classified $10.1 million of this settlement in other accrued liabilities and the remaining $1.3 million in other long-term liabilities.

Director and Officer Indemnifications

As permitted under Delaware law, and as set forth in the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and its Bylaws, the Company indemnifies its directors, executive officers, other officers, employees and other agents for certain events or occurrences that may arise while in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under this indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has insurance policies that may limit its exposure and may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Assuming the applicability of coverage, the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage, and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, the Company believes any obligations under this indemnification would not be material, other than an initial $1.5 million for securities related claims an $0.3 million for commercial general liability claims. However, no assurances can be given that the covering insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability, or amount of coverage without expensive litigation against these insurers, in which case the Company may incur substantial liabilities as a result of these indemnification obligations.

Third-Party Payer Reimbursement Audits

One third-party payer has alleged that it has overpaid the Company, and has demanded recoupment of the alleged overpayments. The Company disagrees with the contentions.

Contractual Commitments

As of December 31, 2017, the Company has non‑cancelable contractual commitments with a supplier for approximately $5.1 million and other material supplier commitments for approximately $7.7 million for inventory material used in the laboratory testing process.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company has a non-cancelable license agreement with a vendor for approximately $2.0 million. This represents binding and remaining commitments with the vendor through December 31, 2019.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company has a non-cancelable contractual commitments with a vendor for biological sample processing and storage totaling approximately $1.1 million for the next 12 months.