The Company leases approximately 8,500 square feet of office space for its corporate headquarters in Pasadena, California. The lease will expire in September 2019. Monthly rental payments are approximately $28,100 per month, increasing approximately 3% annually.

The Company also leases approximately 60,000 square feet of office and laboratory space for its research facility in Madison, Wisconsin. The lease will expire in September 2026. As part of this lease, the Company was provided a primary tenant improvement allowance of $2.1 million which is accounted for as Deferred Rent and a secondary tenant improvement allowance of $2.7 million which was accounted for as a note payable on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. In October 2018, the Company paid off the remaining $2.3 million balance on the note payable. Monthly rental payments are approximately $133,400 per month, increasing approximately 2.5% annually.

Facility rent expense for the three months ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 was $335,000 and $326,000, respectively.

As of December 31, 2018, future minimum lease payments due in fiscal years under operating leases are as follows:

2019	$	1,043,245
2020		1,044,431
2021		1,070,496
2022		1,097,168
2023		1,124,445
2024 and thereafter		3,544,882
Total	$	8,924,667

In January 2019, the Company entered into amendments to its existing lease for its Madison, Wisconsin research facility. The amendments add an additional 13,000 square feet of office and laboratory space to the facility. The increased capacity of this new facility will accommodate increased research and development personnel and manufacturing capabilities for the Company’s expanding pipeline of current and future drug candidates. See Note 11 for additional discussion of these amendments.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company’s hepatitis B drug research. The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought damages in an unspecified amount. Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company’s Board of Directors in connection with the alleged facts underlying the securities claims. An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar claims was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5, 2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16, 2015). Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive relief. On October 7, 2016, the federal district court dismissed the consolidated class action with prejudice. Following the dismissal of the consolidated class action, the parties for the Weisman and Johnson actions jointly stipulated to dismiss the actions, with the parties bearing their own fees and costs. The parties to the Bernstein and consolidated derivative action agreed to stay the matters pending the resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated class action. On February 15, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum affirming the district court’s dismissal of all claims. Plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative action voluntarily dismissed their case. The parties to the Bernstein action filed a stipulation to continue the stay of the action pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal in Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal.). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in each of these matters. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to these matters. The Company does not expect these matters to have a material effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company and certain executive officers were named as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company’s drug research programs. The consolidated class action, initially filed as Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2016 ), Siegel v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-8954 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2016), and Unz v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.2:17-cv-00310 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2017) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company’s drug research programs and seek damages in an unspecified amount. Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is stayed pending the related consolidated class action. Two additional putative stockholder derivative actions, captioned Lucas v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03207 (C.D. Cal., filed April 28, 2017), and Singh v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03160 (C.D. Cal., filed April 27, 2017), alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company’s Board of Directors in connection with the alleged facts underlying the securities claims, are pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Lucas and Singh actions have been consolidated. On December 21, 2017, the federal district court dismissed the consolidated class action with prejudice. On December 27, 2017 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Lucas and Singh actions are stayed pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to these matters. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and cannot accurately estimate any potential liability the Company may incur or the impact of the results of this matter on the Company.

With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees related to these matters or any other legal matters, the Company recognizes such costs as incurred.

In the normal course of business, we enter into various purchase commitments for the manufacture of drug components, for toxicology studies, and for clinical studies. As of December 31, 2018, these future commitments were estimated at approximately $34.0 million, of which approximately $25.0 million is expected to be incurred in fiscal 2019, and $9.0 is expected to be incurred beyond fiscal 2019.

The Company has licensed from third parties the rights to use certain technologies for its research and development activities, as well as in any products the Company may develop using these licensed technologies. These agreements and other similar agreements often require milestone and royalty payments. Milestone payments, for example, may be required as the research and development process progresses through various stages of development, such as when clinical candidates enter or progress through clinical trials, upon NDA and upon certain sales level milestones. These milestone payments could amount to the mid to upper double-digit millions of dollars. During the three months ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Company did not reach milestones requiring payment. In certain agreements, the Company may be required to make mid to high single-digit percentage royalty payments based on a percentage of the sales of the relevant products.