Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Leases: The Company primarily enters into leases for office space that are classified as operating leases. Total lease cost, composed primarily of the costs related to operating leases, was $1.1 million and $0.6 million in the three months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Total lease cost was $2.3 million and $1.1 million in the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Purchase commitments: The Company enters into inventory purchase commitments with third-party manufacturers in the ordinary course of business. These commitments are generally non-cancellable and are based on sales forecasts. These agreements range from one to five-year periods and may contain fixed or minimum annual commitments, subject to certain provisions that allow the Company to renegotiate the commitment. The aggregate amount of minimum inventory purchase commitments as of June 30, 2022 was $86.4 million. There were no significant changes to the inventory supply agreement with the certain third-party manufacturing vendor during the three and six months ended June 30, 2022. The Company applied the guidance in Topic 330, Inventory to assess the purchase commitment as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 and determined that based on current conditions no change in the accrual for the purchase commitment was required. As of June 30, 2022, the Company has a vendor advance asset of $17.9 million, net of write-downs and an accrued purchase commitment liability of $19.3 million related to the agreement. The portion of the balances that is expected to be utilized in the next 12 months is included in current assets and current liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. Contingencies The Company is involved in litigation and legal matters from time to time, which have arisen in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate results of these matters are not currently determinable, management does not expect that they will have a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and comprehensive loss, or statements of cash flows. On February 16, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Rose v. Butterfly Network, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer, the Chairman of its board of directors, as well as Longview’s Chairman (who is a director of the Company), Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and members of Longview’s board of directors prior to the Business Combination, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock between February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021 and/or holders as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on February 12, 2021 in connection with the approval of the Business Combination. The lawsuit is premised upon allegations that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions about its post-Business Combination business and financial prospects, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, together with interest thereon, as well as the costs and expenses of litigation. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in the defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any potential settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. On March 9, 2022, Fujifilm Sonosite, Inc. (“Fujifilm”) filed a complaint against the Company, styled Fujifilm Sonosite, Inc. v. Butterfly Network, Inc. (Case No. 1:22-cv-00309) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that the iQ and iQ+ ultrasound probes, hard carrying case, and mobile device application software infringe certain patents purportedly owned by Fujifilm. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages including compensatory damages, lost profits, and reasonable royalty damages, a preliminary and/or permanent injunction, pre- and post-judgment interest, and the fees and costs of litigation. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in the defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any potential settlement or judgment or the fees and costs of the litigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. On June 21, 2022, a stockholder derivative action, styled Koenig v. Todd M. Fruchterman, et al. (Case 1:22-cv-00825) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Board of Directors and the Company as nominal defendant, alleging violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and claims for breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting and gross mismanagement. The lawsuit is premised upon allegedly inadequate internal controls, purportedly misleading representations regarding the Company’s financial condition and business prospects and the Company’s November 2021 earnings announcement. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and restitution, together with interest thereon, as well as the costs and expenses of litigation. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in the defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any potential settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time The Company enters into agreements that contain indemnification provisions with other parties in the ordinary course of business, including business partners, investors, contractors, customers and the Company’s officers, directors and certain employees. The Company has agreed to indemnify and defend the indemnified party claims and related losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party from actual or threatened third-party claims because of the Company’s activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by the Company. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions due to the Company’s limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in any particular case. To date, losses recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss in connection with the indemnification provisions have not been material.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Leases:

The Company primarily enters into leases for office space that are classified as operating leases. Total lease cost, composed primarily of the costs related to operating leases, was $1.1 million and $0.6 million in the three months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Total lease cost was $2.3 million and $1.1 million in the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Purchase commitments:

The Company enters into inventory purchase commitments with third-party manufacturers in the ordinary course of business. These commitments are generally non-cancellable and are based on sales forecasts. These agreements range from one to five-year periods and may contain fixed or minimum annual commitments, subject to certain provisions that allow the Company to renegotiate the commitment. The aggregate amount of minimum inventory purchase commitments as of June 30, 2022 was $86.4 million.

There were no significant changes to the inventory supply agreement with the certain third-party manufacturing vendor during the three and six months ended June 30, 2022. The Company applied the guidance in Topic 330, Inventory to assess the purchase commitment as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 and determined that based on current conditions no change in the accrual for the purchase commitment was required.

As of June 30, 2022, the Company has a vendor advance asset of $17.9 million, net of write-downs and an accrued purchase commitment liability of $19.3 million related to the agreement. The portion of the balances that is expected to be utilized in the next 12 months is included in current assets and current liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Contingencies

The Company is involved in litigation and legal matters from time to time, which have arisen in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate results of these matters are not currently determinable, management does not expect that they will have a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and comprehensive loss, or statements of cash flows.

On February 16, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Rose v. Butterfly Network, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer, the Chairman of its board of directors, as well as Longview’s Chairman (who is a director of the Company), Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and members of Longview’s board of directors prior to the Business Combination, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock between February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021 and/or holders as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on February 12, 2021 in connection with the approval of the Business Combination. The lawsuit is premised upon allegations that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions about its post-Business Combination business and financial prospects, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, together with interest thereon, as well as the costs and expenses of litigation. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in the defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any potential settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

On March 9, 2022, Fujifilm Sonosite, Inc. (“Fujifilm”) filed a complaint against the Company, styled Fujifilm Sonosite, Inc. v. Butterfly Network, Inc. (Case No. 1:22-cv-00309) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that the iQ and iQ+ ultrasound probes, hard carrying case, and mobile device application software infringe certain patents purportedly owned by Fujifilm. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages including compensatory damages, lost profits, and reasonable royalty damages, a preliminary and/or permanent injunction, pre- and post-judgment interest, and the fees and costs of litigation. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in the defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any potential settlement or judgment or the fees and costs of the litigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

On June 21, 2022, a stockholder derivative action, styled Koenig v. Todd M. Fruchterman, et al. (Case 1:22-cv-00825) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Board of Directors and the Company as nominal defendant, alleging violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and claims for breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting and gross mismanagement. The lawsuit is premised upon allegedly inadequate internal controls, purportedly misleading representations regarding the Company’s financial condition and business prospects and the Company’s November 2021 earnings announcement. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and restitution, together with interest thereon, as well as the costs and expenses of litigation. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in the defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any potential settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time

The Company enters into agreements that contain indemnification provisions with other parties in the ordinary course of business, including business partners, investors, contractors, customers and the Company’s officers, directors and certain employees. The Company has agreed to indemnify and defend the indemnified party claims and related losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party from actual or threatened third-party claims because of the Company’s activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by the Company. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions due to the Company’s limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in any particular case. To date, losses recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss in connection with the indemnification provisions have not been material.