13. Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies

Collaborative Agreements, Royalties and Milestone Payments

The Company has committed to make potential future “milestone” payments to third parties as part of licensing and development programs. Payments under these agreements become due and payable only upon the Company’s achievement of certain developmental, regulatory and commercial milestones. Because it is uncertain if and when these milestones will be achieved, such contingencies, aggregating up to $7.5 million (assuming one product per contract meets all milestones events) have not been recorded on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company is unable to determine precisely when and if payment obligations under the agreements will become due as these obligations are based on milestone events, the achievement of which is subject to a significant number of risks and uncertainties.

Legal Proceedings

On July 24, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al. (Case No. 3:15-cv-3425) against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Medical Officer. The complaint asserts that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that Messrs. Varian and Rubin violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 8, 2016 asserting the same claims and adding a former director as a defendant. On September 2, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016. Defendants filed a reply on October 21, 2016. The judge in the case has advised that he will rule on the motion based on those pleadings, but has not yet issued a ruling. Based on a review of allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff’s allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in which such a loss is recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.

On October 1, 2015, a stockholder purporting to act on the behalf of the Company, filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, purportedly asserting claims on behalf of the Company against certain of officers and the members of Board of Directors of the Company, captioned Silva v. Scannon, et al. (Case No. RG15787990). The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to the Company’s EYEGUARD-B study. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures. This action is currently stayed pending further developments in the securities class action. Management believes the allegations have no merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in which such a loss is recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.

On November 16 and November 25, 2015, two derivative lawsuits were filed purportedly on the Company’s behalf in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Fieser v. Van Ness, et al. (Case No. 4:15-CV-05236-HSG) and Csoka v. Varian, et al. (Case No. 3:15-cv-05429-SI), against certain of the Company’s officers and the members of its Board of Directors. The lawsuits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other violations of law based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to the Company’s EYEGUARD-B study. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief including reforms and improvements to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures. Both actions are currently stayed pending further developments in the securities class action. Management believes the allegations have no merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in which such a loss is recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit

Operating Leases

As of December 31, 2016, the Company leased administrative, research facilities, and office equipment under operating leases expiring on various dates through April 2023. These leases require the Company to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance and minimum lease payments. For each facility lease, the Company has two successive renewal options to extend the lease for five years upon the expiration of the initial lease term.

The Company estimates future minimum lease payments, excluding sub-lease income (in thousands):

Total rental expense, including other costs required under the Company’s leases, was approximately $3.8 million, $3.7 million and $3.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. Rental expense based on leases allowing for escalated rent payments are recognized on a straight-line basis. At the expiration of the lease, the Company is required to restore certain of its leased property to certain conditions in place at the time of lease inception. The Company believes these costs will not be material to its operations.

On December 31, 2015, in conjunction with the closing of the asset purchase agreement with Agenus, the Company entered into sublease agreements with Agenus for portions of two leased buildings through December 31, 2016, subject to early termination by Agenus. The terms of the sublease agreements commenced on December 31, 2015, and were terminated under the early termination option on October 31, 2016. Under the terms of the sublease agreements, the Company received an aggregate of $0.3 million over the sublease term.

Capital Leases

During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company entered into capital lease agreements for certain network hardware and equipment for use by the Company and its employees. The lease terms are for three years. The current portion of capital lease obligations is included in the accrued and other liabilities line and the noncurrent capital lease obligations is included in other liabilities – long term line in the consolidated balance sheets.

The following is a schedule of future minimum lease payments due under the capital lease obligation as of December 31, 2016 (in thousands):