Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

5. Commitments and contingencies

Operating leases

Nashville office space lease

In January 2023, the Company entered into a lease agreement for approximately 17,572 sq. ft. of office space in Nashville, Tennessee. The tenant improvements of $0.9 million were funded by the Company and considered to be lessor-owned for accounting purposes. As such, the tenant improvement funding was recorded as part of the right-of-use asset. The Company recorded a right-of-use asset of $2.3 million and the corresponding lease liability of $1.4 million as of the commencement date in March 2023.

The initial term of the lease is 76 months with the option to extend the lease term once for additional 5 years. The Company has elected to apply the tenant improvement allowance of $0.9 million against the lease payments, and this amount was excluded from the operating lease liability. The right-of-use asset and corresponding lease liability for the Nashville lease were estimated using an incremental borrowing rate of 11.2%.

Operating lease costs and minimum lease payments

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2023, the Company incurred $0.4 million and $0.8 million of operating lease costs, respectively. Variable lease payments for operating expenses and costs related to short-term leases were immaterial for the three and six months ended June 30, 2023.

As of June 30, 2023, undiscounted future minimum lease payments due under the non-cancelable operating leases are as follows:


	Amount
	(in thousands)
Remainder of 2023	$	637
2024		1,081
2025		1,635
2026		1,886
2027		1,945
Thereafter		3,066
Total minimum future lease payments		10,250
Present value adjustment for minimum lease commitments		(2,438	)
Total lease liability	$	7,812

Legal and other contingencies

The Company is involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business and may become involved in additional legal proceedings. Other than those listed below, the Company does not believe that any lawsuits or claims currently pending against it, individually or in the aggregate, are material or will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company may enter into settlement discussions, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders. Unless stated otherwise, the matters discussed below, if decided adversely or settled by the Company, individually or in the aggregate, may result in a liability material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is also subject to review from federal and state taxing authorities in order to validate the amounts of income, sales and use taxes which have been claimed and remitted. The Company has estimated exposure and established reserves for its estimated sales tax audit liability.

In the normal course of business, the Company may agree to indemnify third parties with whom it enters into contractual relationships, including customers, lessors, and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed, under certain conditions, to hold these third parties harmless against specified losses, such as those arising from a breach of representations or covenants, other third-party claims that the Company’s products, when used for their intended purposes, infringe the intellectual property rights of such other third parties, or other claims made against certain parties. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of liability under these indemnification obligations due to the Company’s limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances that are likely to be involved in any particular claim.

Securities Class Action

On October 6, 2021, putative shareholder Joseph Fazio filed a purported securities class action against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Fazio v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-07848 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) (the “Fazio Action”). Plaintiff Fazio alleges that certain of the Company’s disclosures about its business, operations, and prospects, including reimbursement from third-party payors, violated federal securities laws. Fazio voluntarily dismissed his complaint on December 6, 2021. On November 4, 2021, putative shareholder Alden Chung filed a purported class action lawsuit substantially similar to the Fazio Action, captioned Chung v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021) (the “Chung Action”). On November 10, 2021, putative shareholder IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan filed a purported class action substantially similar to the Fazio and Chung Actions and also asserting claims under the federal securities laws against current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors”) and the underwriters of the Company’s October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common stock, captioned IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-08747 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021) (the “IBEW Action”). These class actions, which seek damages and other relief, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Fazio and Chung Actions were brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo securities between February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021. The IBEW Action was brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired: (i) Eargo shares in or traceable to the Company’s October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common stock; and/or (ii) shares of Eargo common stock between October 15, 2020 and September 22, 2021. On January 5, 2022, the court consolidated the foregoing class actions (as consolidated, the “Securities Class Action”) under the caption In re Eargo, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-08597-CRB, and appointed IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan and Xiaobin Cai as Lead Plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel. On May 20, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which purported to extend the class period through March 2, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022. The Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 14, 2023. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 16, 2023 and defendants filed a second motion to dismiss on April 21, 2023. On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion, and on June 23, 2023, defendants filed their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss. A hearing is currently scheduled for September 29, 2023

The Company intends to vigorously defend the Securities Class Action and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigation. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of this matter and no assurance as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected.

Derivative Action

On December 3, 2021, putative shareholder Barbara Wolfson filed a derivative complaint purportedly on the Company’s behalf against members of the Board of Directors and the Company as nominal defendant, captioned Wolfson v. Gormsen, et. al., No. 21-cv-09342 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021) (the “Wolfson Action”). Plaintiff asserts, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to implement and maintain an effective system of internal controls related to the Company’s financial reporting, public disclosures and compliance with laws, rules and regulations governing the business. Plaintiff purports to assert derivative claims on the Company’s behalf for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting. On March 1, 2022, the court entered the parties’ stipulation staying the Wolfson Action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. On June 9, 2022, putative shareholder Brodie Woodward filed a derivative complaint purportedly on Eargo’s behalf against the same defendants as in the Wolfson Action, as well as Juliet Tammenoms Bakker, Adam Laponis, and Geoff Pardo, captioned Woodward v. Gormsen, et al., No. 22-cv-03419 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2022) (together with the Wolfson Action, the “Derivative Action”). Plaintiff Woodward asserts substantively

similar allegations and causes of action as those asserted in the Wolfson Action. On August 4, 2022, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the Derivative Action and to stay the consolidated action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend the Derivative Action and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigations. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters and no assurance as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected.

Eargo, Inc. 10-Q