Contingencies On April 5, 2018 and April 12, 2018, purported stockholders of the Company filed nearly identical putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the Company, Panna L. Sharma, John A. Roberts, and Igor Gitelman, captioned Ben Phetteplace v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al ., No. 2:18-cv-05612 and Ruo Fen Zhang v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al. , No. 2:18-06353, respectively. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding our business, operational, and financial results. The lawsuits sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in connection with purchases of our stock between March 23, 2017 and April 2, 2018, as well as interest, attorneys fees, and costs. On August 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions in one action captioned In re Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation (the Securities Litigation) and appointed shareholder Randy Clark as the lead plaintiff. On October 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding Edward Sitar as a defendant and seeking, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with purchases of CGI stock between March 10, 2016 and April 2, 2018. On December 31, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the Securities Litigation and therefore cannot estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if any. In addition, on June 1, 2018, September 20, 2018, and September 25, 2018, purported stockholders of the Company filed nearly identical derivative lawsuits on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company (as a nominal defendant) and current and former members of the Companys Board of Directors and current and former officers of the Company. The three cases are captioned: Bell v. Sharma et al. , No. 2:18-cv-10009-CCC-MF, McNeece v. Pappajohn et al. , No. 2:18-cv-14093, and Workman v. Pappajohn, et al. , No. 2:18-cv-14259 (the Derivative Litigation). The complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (premised upon alleged omissions in the Companys 2017 proxy statement), and unjust enrichment, and allege that the individual defendants failed to implement and maintain adequate controls, which resulted in ineffective disclosure controls and procedures, and conspired to conceal this alleged failure. The lawsuits seek, among other things, damages and/or restitution to the Company, appropriate equitable relief to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and attorneys fees and costs. On November 9, 2018, the Court in the Bell v. Sharma action entered a stipulation filed by the parties staying the Bell action until the Securities Litigation is dismissed, with prejudice, and all appeals have been exhausted; or the defendants motion to dismiss in the Securities Litigation is denied in whole or in part; or either of the parties in the Bell action gives 30 days notice that they no longer consent to the stay. On December 10, 2018, the parties in the McNeece action filed a stipulation that is substantially identical to the Bell stipulation. On February 1, 2019, the Court in the Workman action granted a stipulation that is substantially identical to the Bell stipulation. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the Derivative Litigation and therefore cannot estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if any.