NOTE 16. COMMITMENTS

Leases

The Company has entered into lease agreements, lease amendments, and lease extensions the last of which expires in 2022. Total rent expense, including common area charges was $309,000 and $280,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 was $625,000 and $540,000, respectively. Future minimum lease payments under operating lease agreements are as follows:



Operating Lease Obligations (in thousands)
Year ending December 31:
2017	$	514
2018	179
2019	96
2020	55
2021	23
Thereafter	2
Total operating lease obligations	$	869

Clinical Trial Agreements

The Company has entered into master agreements with clinical trial sites in which we typically pay a set amount for start-up costs and then pay for work performed. These agreements typically indemnify the clinical trial sites from any and all losses arising from third party claims as a result of the Company’s negligence, willful misconduct or misrepresentation. The Company incurred clinical trial expense of $18,000 and $760,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $27,000 and $1.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The expense incurred as part of the clinical trial is included in research and development on the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

Legal Matters

On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., Lawrence Mehren, and Steve Reichling, Rapp v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504. The complaint alleges that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements about our Accelerate Pheno™ system, formerly called the BACcel System. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock between March 7, 2014, and February 17, 2015. On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the purported class. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and by allegedly employing schemes to defraud. Plaintiff sought certification of the action as a class action, compensatory damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may order. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2015. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice on January 28, 2016. On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which challenges the dismissal of the amended complaint. Chang v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-CV-00504-SPL (9th Cir. filed Feb. 26, 2016). The appeal has been fully briefed and is scheduled for argument in September 2017.