asserted the claims from the Texas action as counterclaims in the California action, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In August 2021, Guardant moved to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims, which motion was denied in all material respects. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which were granted in part and denied in part. Trial is currently scheduled for March 2024.
In November 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by a patient alleging various causes of action relating to the Company’s patient billing and seeks, among other relief, class certification, injunctive relief, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and costs. In May 2023, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. In July 2023, the plaintiff filed analogous claims in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, to which the Company expects to file a response.
In February 2022, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Each suit was filed by an individual patient alleging various causes of action related to the marketing of Panorama and seeking, among other relief, class certification, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. These matters have been consolidated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit, which resulted in the plaintiffs filing an amended complaint in April 2023.
In March 2022, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its management in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding its Panorama test. The complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. This matter has been dismissed and the claims raised in this matter have been included in the lawsuit discussed below.
A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its management in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint, filed in April 2022 and amended in October 2022 (to include, among others, the claims raised in the lawsuit discussed in the preceding paragraph), alleges, among other things, that the management defendants made materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about certain of the Company’s products and operations. The complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which was granted in part and denied in part.
In October 2023, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against the Company as nominal defendant and certain of the Company’s management, alleging, among other things, that the management defendants made materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about certain of the Company’s products and operations. The complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
Director and Officer Indemnifications
As permitted under Delaware law, and as set forth in the Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and its Amended and Restated 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 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 standard retention amounts for securities related 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.