Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Letters of Credit We were party to letters of credit totaling $3.3 million and $3.1 million as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively, issued primarily in support of operating leases for our facilities. These letters of credit are collateralized by a line with our bank. No amounts have been drawn against these letters of credit. Purchase Obligations As of June 30, 2022, we had approximately $25.9 million of non-cancelable firm purchase commitments primarily for purchases of software and services. In situations where we have received delivery of the goods or services as of June 30, 2022 under purchase orders outstanding as of the same date, such amounts are reflected in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as accounts payable or accrued liabilities and are excluded from the $25.9 million. Litigation From time to time, we are involved in claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Any claims or proceedings against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or require us to enter into agreements which may not be available on terms favorable to us or at all. On November 3, 2021, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed an action against the Company and our board of directors, alleging a violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Sec. 271 and breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with our sale of the FireEye Products business. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment, a shareholder vote, and attorneys’ fees, as well as other relief. The action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under the caption Altieri v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 2021-0946. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 14, 2022. On July 29, 2022, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable. On April 1, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Stein v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-02697. On April 4, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and our board of directors, captioned O’Dell v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-02782. On April 5, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Banda v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-02805. On April 6, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Whitfield v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01973. On April 8, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Waterman v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-01400. On April 10, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Farley v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-02045. On April 11, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Boncore v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-02988. On May 5, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Cornelius v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-02589. On May 10, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company and our board of directors, captioned White v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-00515 (which we refer to as the “White Complaint”). On May 16, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Jones v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-02844. On May 16, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Kaufmann v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-00645. On May 17, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and our board of directors, captioned Murphy v. Mandiant, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-00653. We refer to the complaints referenced in this paragraph collectively as the “Complaints.” The Complaints asserted claims against all defendants under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder for allegedly false and misleading statements in Mandiant’s proxy statement and against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged “control person” liability with respect to such allegedly false or misleading statements. The allegations in the Complaints include that the proxy statement omitted material information regarding Mandiant’s financial projections, the analyses performed by Goldman Sachs, the sales process leading up to the merger, potential conflicts of interest involving Mandiant insiders, and potential conflicts of interest involving Goldman Sachs. The Complaints seek, among other relief, (1) to enjoin defendants from consummating the merger; (2) to rescind the merger or recover damages, if the merger is completed; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) attorneys’ fees and costs. Mandiant believes that the disclosures set forth in the proxy statement comply fully with all applicable law and that the allegations contained in the Complaints are without merit. However, in order to moot the purported stockholders’ unmeritorious disclosure claims, alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and provide additional information to its stockholders, Mandiant determined to voluntarily supplement the proxy statement with certain supplemental disclosures (which we refer to as the “Supplemental Disclosures”). Following the filing of the Supplemental Disclosures, all of the Complaints were voluntarily dismissed, except for the White Complaint. Mandiant believes the claims in the White Complaint are without merit and, in any event, were mooted by the Supplemental Disclosures. Additional lawsuits arising out of the merger may be filed in the future. No assurances can be made as to the outcome of such lawsuits or the White Complaint. Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable. On June 2, 2022, a purported Mandiant stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, captioned Pucek v. Mandiant, Inc., No. 2022-0476 (which we refer to as the “Pucek Complaint”). The Pucek Complaint seeks to compel inspection of certain of the Company’s books and records pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law Sec. 220, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. Mandiant believes that the allegations in the Pucek Complaint are without merit. Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable. For a more detailed description of litigation in connection with the merger, see the section of our 2022 proxy statement captioned “The Merger—Litigation Relating to the Merger.” To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized may be incurred, and the amount of such additional loss would be material, we will either disclose the estimated additional loss or state that such an estimate cannot be made. We do not currently believe that it is reasonably possible that additional losses in connection with litigation arising in the ordinary course of business would be material. Indemnification Under the indemnification provisions of our standard sales related contracts, we agree to defend our customers against third-party claims asserting infringement of certain intellectual property rights, which may include patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets, and to pay judgments entered on such claims. Our exposure under these indemnification provisions is generally limited to the total amount paid by our customer under the agreement. However, certain agreements include indemnification provisions that could potentially expose us to losses in excess of the amount received under the agreement. In addition, we indemnify our officers, directors, and certain key employees for actions taken while they are or were serving in good faith in such capacities. Through June 30, 2022, there have been no claims under any indemnification provisions.

Mandiant, Inc. 10-Q