11. Commitments and Contingencies

 

As a public biotechnology company, the Company operates in a regulated environment, and from time to time, is party to various legal proceedings and receives regulatory inquiries arising in the ordinary course of business. The costs and outcome of litigation, regulatory, investigatory or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and some lawsuits, claims, actions or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In addition, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. If a matter is both probable to result in a material liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues the estimated loss. Disclosure is provided when a loss is considered probable, but the loss is not reasonably estimable and when a material loss is reasonably possible but not probable. If such a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, no material accruals have been recorded for potential contingencies related to these matters.

 

License Agreements

 

The Company has entered into license agreements with various parties under which it is obligated to make contingent and non-contingent payments (see Note 13).

 

Operating Leases

The Company has entered into an operating lease agreement with respect to its corporate headquarters located at 675 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts (see Note 5). In September 2025, the Company entered into sublease agreements for a portion of its lease through the remainder of its lease term. The Company recorded sublease income as a reduction of lease expense, in an amount of $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2025.

Indemnification Agreements

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its Board of Directors and its officers that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or executive officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. The process surrounding the Investigation and the Wells Notice (both as defined below) has resulted in legal expenses and certain liabilities for the Company and the named individuals, and each of the named individuals, as directors and/or officers of the Company at the time of the initiation of the Investigation and Wells Notice, are entitled to indemnification for certain costs associated with the Investigation and the Wells Notice. The Company maintains a general liability insurance policy that covers certain expenses and liabilities of our directors and officers arising out of claims based on acts or omissions in their capacities as directors or officers (the “D&O Insurance”), however, the total expenses and liabilities in connection with the Investigation and the Wells Notice and the amount that will be covered by such D&O Insurance is unknown at this time. The Company is not aware of any claims under indemnification arrangements that will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows, and it has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in its consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2025 or December 31, 2024.

 

Legal Proceedings

 

Securities Class Action Lawsuits and Derivative Actions

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, one captioned Richard S. Germond v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla, Case No. 1:22-cv-03125, filed on May 26, 2022, and the other captioned Kashif Memon v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla Case No. 1:22-cv-04154, filed on July 15, 2022. The parties moved to consolidate the two complaints on July 22, 2022, which were ordered consolidated on August 5, 2022 (“Consolidated Putative Class Action”). The parties filed an Amended Complaint on December 5, 2022, purported to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock from September 8, 2020 through May 2, 2022. The Amended Complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the NDA for tebipenem HBr in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The Company filed a fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss on June 21, 2023. By Order entered on September 30, 2024, the Motion to Dismiss was granted, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Court ordered the case to be closed by Memorandum and Order entered on October 28, 2024.

A stockholder derivative action was filed against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the Company's current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Marti v. Mahadevia, et al., Case. No. 1:23-cv-01133-RGA (the “First Derivative Complaint”), on October 11, 2023. The plaintiffs both purport to be current stockholders, and the allegations are primarily the same as those made in the Consolidated Putative Class Action. The First Derivative Complaint was transferred to the Eastern District of New York on November 13, 2023. A second stockholder derivative action was filed against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, captioned Heil v. Mahadevia, et al., Case. No. 505153/2024 (the “Second Derivative Complaint”), on February 21, 2024. The Second Derivative Complaint makes primarily the same allegations as the First Derivative Complaint, and the Consolidated Putative Class Action. The plaintiffs in both derivative suits agreed to a stay pending decision on the class action, subject to court approval. By Order entered on September 30, 2024, the motion to stay the First Derivative Complaint was denied as moot due to the dismissal of the Consolidated Putative Class Action. On March 20, 2025, the Second Derivative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

 

SEC Investigation and Wells Notice

On January 9, 2025, the Company responded to a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the Boston Regional Office (the “Staff”) of the SEC regarding its preliminary determination to recommend a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and former member of the Board of Directors, Ankit Mahadevia, M.D. (“Dr. Mahadevia”), and its former Chief Financial Officer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Satyavrat “Sath” Shukla (“Mr. Shukla”), relating to certain public disclosures by the Company from March 31, 2022 leading up to the Company’s announcement on May 3, 2022 that it had determined to cease commercialization of tebipenem HBr based on feedback from the FDA, and whether the Company’s disclosures may have violated the federal securities laws (the “Investigation”).

On January 16, 2026, acting pursuant to an offer of settlement submitted by Dr. Mahadevia and Mr. Shukla, the SEC issued an order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings, making findings, and imposing a cease-and-desist order pursuant to Section 8A of the 1933 Act, directing Dr. Mahadevia and Mr. Shukla to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2) (the “SEC Order”). In the SEC Order, the SEC made findings that, from March 31, 2022 to May 3, 2022, Dr. Mahadevia and Mr. Shukla, violated Section 17(a)(2) of 1933 Act, which provides that it is unlawful for any person, in the offer or sale of a security, to “obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of material fact” or a material omission necessary to make statements made not misleading. A violation of this provision does not require scienter and may rest on a finding of negligence. Dr. Mahadevia and Mr. Shukla consented to entry of the SEC Order without admitting or denying the findings contained therein, except as to jurisdiction.

On January 20, 2026, the Company received a letter (the “Letter”) from the SEC advising the Company that the SEC has concluded its investigation into the Company and that, based on the information as of the date of the Letter, the SEC does not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the Company at this time. The Letter was provided under the guidelines set out in the final paragraph of Securities Act Release No. 5310.

The Company and Mr. Shukla mutually decided to separate, and Mr. Shukla also resigned from the Board of Directors, in each case effective as of May 2, 2025. On January 30, 2026, Dr. Mahadevia resigned from the Board of Directors, including from his service on the Development Committee of the Board and from all officer and director positions he then held with any and all subsidiaries of the Company, effective as of January 30, 2026. On January 31, 2026, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Dr. Mahadevia, through which he will be available to provide consulting services to the Company, as may be requested from time to time by management.

Free Sentinel

Want the next Spero Therapeutics, Inc. commitments disclosure the moment it drops?

Set a Sentinel and we'll alert you the moment Spero Therapeutics, Inc.'s next filing hits EDGAR. No credit card, your email never gets sold.

Track for free

Historical Timeline

Fiscal YearFiled
2025Mar 26, 2026Showing above
2024Mar 27, 2025
2023Mar 13, 2024
2022Mar 30, 2023
2021Mar 31, 2022
2020Mar 11, 2021
2019Mar 16, 2020
2018Mar 14, 2019
2017Apr 2, 2018

About Commitments Disclosures

Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.

Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.