Commitments and Contingencies
Research, Manufacturing, and License Agreements
We enter into various agreements in the ordinary course of business, such as those with CMOs, suppliers, CROs, clinical trial sites, licensors, assignors, and the like. These agreements provide for termination by either party in certain circumstances, generally with less than one-year notice and are, therefore, cancellable contracts and, if cancelled, are not anticipated to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Some of these agreements include contingent payments that will become payable if and when certain development, regulatory, clinical, and/or commercial milestones are achieved by us. As of December 31, 2025, satisfaction and timing of such contingent payments are uncertain and thus cannot be reasonably estimated.
Guarantees and Indemnifications
In the ordinary course of business, we enter into agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for certain indemnifications by us. Our exposure under these agreements is unknown because claims may be made against us in the future. As of December 31, 2025, and 2024, we did not have any material indemnification claims that were probable or reasonably possible, and consequently, we have not recorded related liabilities.
Litigation
From time to time, we may become involved in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. We record a liability for such litigation when it is probable that future losses will be incurred and if such losses can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment by us is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount.
On December 24, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against our company and certain of our current and former officers, Saylor v. Caribou Biosciences, Inc., et al., case number 3:24-cv-09413 (“Saylor Case”). The alleged class period was July 14, 2023, to July 16, 2024. The Saylor Case complaint challenged disclosures regarding our company’s business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the alleged safety, efficacy, and durability of vispa-cel, the clinical results and commercial prospects for vispa-cel, and our financial statements, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”). On April 15, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit and, on April 27, 2025, the court granted the motion, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice.
On March 3, 2025, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against our directors and certain of our current and former officers, Moisio, derivatively on behalf of Caribou Biosciences, Inc. v. Haurwitz, et al., case number 4:25-cv-02199 (“First Derivative Case”), alleging, among other things, that the named directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by causing our company to make the disclosures being challenged in the Saylor Case and seeking unspecified monetary damages from our company as well as that we make certain changes to our corporate governance. On March 11, 2025, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the same defendants as in the First Derivative Case, Allen, derivatively on behalf of Caribou Biosciences, Inc. v. Braunstein, et al., case number 4:25-cv-02463 (“Second Derivative Case”), with the same allegations. On April 1, 2025, the First Derivative Case and the Second Derivative Case were deemed related and assigned to the same judge and, on April 7, 2025, the First Derivative Case and the Second Derivative Case were consolidated into a single action, In re Caribou Biosciences, Inc. Derivative Litigation, lead case number 4:25-cv-02199 (“Consolidated Derivative Action”). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action filed an amended complaint on July 7, 2025. The amended complaint largely tracked the claims from the original complaints, but it also challenged additional disclosures as false or misleading. On August 21, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 16, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, which the court granted on October 17, 2025.