COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES.
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Securities and Derivative Lawsuits On March 14, 2014, a purported class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both of the purported class action securities lawsuits filed in the California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on September 19, 2014. On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with the Class Action Lawsuits. We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. On April 21, 2014, a stockholder purporting to act on our behalf filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, or the San Mateo County Court, against certain of our officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. In general, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants caused or allowed the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with ET or PV. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. On June 26, 2015 and June 29, 2015, respectively, two additional derivative lawsuits naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants were filed in the California District Court by stockholders purporting to act on our behalf. The two derivative cases filed in the California District Court were consolidated on August 13, 2015. On August 25, 2015, an additional derivative lawsuit naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants was filed in the San Mateo County Court. The two derivative cases filed in the San Mateo County Court were consolidated on September 5, 2015. These lawsuits, each of which is based on the same factual background as the derivative lawsuit filed on April 21, 2014 in the San Mateo County Court, also allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. The plaintiffs in each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. It is possible that additional derivative lawsuits will be filed with respect to these same or other matters and also naming our officers and directors as defendants. Proceedings in the derivative lawsuits have been stayed. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims alleged and to seek dismissal of these lawsuits. These lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of these lawsuits is necessarily uncertain. We could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense against these and any other related lawsuits and we may not prevail. We currently are not able to estimate the possible cost to us from these lawsuits, as they are currently at an early stage, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these lawsuits or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. Such amounts could be material to our financial statements even if we prevail in the defense against these lawsuits. We have not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to these lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages. Indemnifications to Officers and Directors Our corporate bylaws require that we indemnify our officers and directors, as well as those who act as directors and officers of other entities at our request, against expenses, judgments, fines, settlements and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with any proceedings arising out of their services to Geron. In addition, we have entered into separate indemnification agreements with each of our directors and officers which provide for indemnification of these directors and officers under similar circumstances and under additional circumstances. The indemnification obligations are more fully described in our bylaws and the indemnification agreements. We purchase standard insurance to cover claims or a portion of the claims made against our directors and officers. Since a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in our bylaws or in our indemnification agreements and will depend on the facts and circumstances that arise out of any future claims, the overall maximum amount of the obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. We have no such obligations on our balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014. Operating Lease Commitment On September 15, 2015, we amended the lease agreement for our premises at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California, to extend the lease term from February 2016 through January 2018. As of December 31, 2015, operating lease obligations under the amended lease agreement include aggregate future minimum payments of approximately $1,386,000. Rent expense under our operating leases was approximately $878,000, $936,000 and $1,422,000 for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Severance Plan We have an Amended and Restated Severance Plan, or Severance Plan, that applies to all employees that are not subject to performance improvement plans, and most significantly provides for, among other benefits: (i) a severance payment upon a Change of Control Triggering Event and Separation from Service (as defined in the Severance Plan) and (ii) a severance payment for each non-executive employee upon a Non-Change of Control Triggering Event and Separation from Service (as defined in the Severance Plan). A Change of Control Triggering Event and Separation from Service is defined as an event where: (i) an employee is terminated by us without cause in connection with a change of control or within 12 months following a change of control provided, however, that if an employee is terminated by us in connection with a change of control but immediately accepts employment with our successor or acquirer, the employee will not be eligible for the benefits outlined in the Severance Plan, (ii) an employee resigns because in connection with a change of control, the offered terms of employment (new or continuing) by us or our successor or acquirer within 30 days after the change of control results in a material change in the terms of employment, or (iii) after accepting (or continuing) employment with us after a change of control, an employee resigns within 12 months following a change of control due to a material change in the terms of employment. A Non-Change of Control Triggering Event and Separation from Service is defined as an event where a non-executive employee is terminated by us without cause. Severance payments range from two to 18 months of base salary, depending on the employee's position with us, payable in a lump sum payment. The Severance Plan also provides that the provisions of employment agreements entered into between us and executive or non-executive employees supersede the provisions of the Severance Plan. As of December 31, 2015, all our executive officers have employment agreements with provisions that may provide greater severance benefits than those in the Severance Plan.

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Securities and Derivative Lawsuits

On March 14, 2014, a purported class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both of the purported class action securities lawsuits filed in the California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on September 19, 2014. On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with the Class Action Lawsuits. We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously.

On April 21, 2014, a stockholder purporting to act on our behalf filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, or the San Mateo County Court, against certain of our officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. In general, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants caused or allowed the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with ET or PV. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. On June 26, 2015 and June 29, 2015, respectively, two additional derivative lawsuits naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants were filed in the California District Court by stockholders purporting to act on our behalf. The two derivative cases filed in the California District Court were consolidated on August 13, 2015. On August 25, 2015, an additional derivative lawsuit naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants was filed in the San Mateo County Court. The two derivative cases filed in the San Mateo County Court were consolidated on September 5, 2015. These lawsuits, each of which is based on the same factual background as the derivative lawsuit filed on April 21, 2014 in the San Mateo County Court, also allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants and other violations of law. The plaintiffs in each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. It is possible that additional derivative lawsuits will be filed with respect to these same or other matters and also naming our officers and directors as defendants. Proceedings in the derivative lawsuits have been stayed. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims alleged and to seek dismissal of these lawsuits.

These lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of these lawsuits is necessarily uncertain. We could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense against these and any other related lawsuits and we may not prevail. We currently are not able to estimate the possible cost to us from these lawsuits, as they are currently at an early stage, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these lawsuits or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. Such amounts could be material to our financial statements even if we prevail in the defense against these lawsuits. We have not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to these lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages.

Indemnifications to Officers and Directors

Our corporate bylaws require that we indemnify our officers and directors, as well as those who act as directors and officers of other entities at our request, against expenses, judgments, fines, settlements and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with any proceedings arising out of their services to Geron. In addition, we have entered into separate indemnification agreements with each of our directors and officers which provide for indemnification of these directors and officers under similar circumstances and under additional circumstances. The indemnification obligations are more fully described in our bylaws and the indemnification agreements. We purchase standard insurance to cover claims or a portion of the claims made against our directors and officers. Since a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in our bylaws or in our indemnification agreements and will depend on the facts and circumstances that arise out of any future claims, the overall maximum amount of the obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. We have no such obligations on our balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Operating Lease Commitment

On September 15, 2015, we amended the lease agreement for our premises at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California, to extend the lease term from February 2016 through January 2018. As of December 31, 2015, operating lease obligations under the amended lease agreement include aggregate future minimum payments of approximately $1,386,000. Rent expense under our operating leases was approximately $878,000, $936,000 and $1,422,000 for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Severance Plan

We have an Amended and Restated Severance Plan, or Severance Plan, that applies to all employees that are not subject to performance improvement plans, and most significantly provides for, among other benefits: (i) a severance payment upon a Change of Control Triggering Event and Separation from Service (as defined in the Severance Plan) and (ii) a severance payment for each non-executive employee upon a Non-Change of Control Triggering Event and Separation from Service (as defined in the Severance Plan). A Change of Control Triggering Event and Separation from Service is defined as an event where: (i) an employee is terminated by us without cause in connection with a change of control or within 12 months following a change of control provided, however, that if an employee is terminated by us in connection with a change of control but immediately accepts employment with our successor or acquirer, the employee will not be eligible for the benefits outlined in the Severance Plan, (ii) an employee resigns because in connection with a change of control, the offered terms of employment (new or continuing) by us or our successor or acquirer within 30 days after the change of control results in a material change in the terms of employment, or (iii) after accepting (or continuing) employment with us after a change of control, an employee resigns within 12 months following a change of control due to a material change in the terms of employment. A Non-Change of Control Triggering Event and Separation from Service is defined as an event where a non-executive employee is terminated by us without cause. Severance payments range from two to 18 months of base salary, depending on the employee's position with us, payable in a lump sum payment. The Severance Plan also provides that the provisions of employment agreements entered into between us and executive or non-executive employees supersede the provisions of the Severance Plan. As of December 31, 2015, all our executive officers have employment agreements with provisions that may provide greater severance benefits than those in the Severance Plan.