Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Leases |
The Company leases certain equipment under capital leases which expire on various dates through June 2017. The leases bear interest at rates ranging from 6.6% to 9.6%, are generally due in monthly principal and interest installments and are collateralized by the related equipment. The Company also leases its buildings and certain equipment and vehicles under operating leases which expire on various dates through January 2019. Future minimum annual lease payments under such leases are as follows (in thousands): |
|
|
| | | | | | | |
Year Ending December 31, | Operating | | Capital |
Remainder of 2014 | $ | 2,452 | | | $ | 391 | |
|
2015 | 2,724 | | | 461 | |
|
2016 | 1,424 | | | 422 | |
|
2017 | 247 | | | 82 | |
|
2018 | 58 | | | — | |
|
Thereafter | 2 | | | — | |
|
| $ | 6,907 | | | 1,356 | |
|
Less: amount representing interest | | | (140 | ) |
Present value of minimum lease payments | | | 1,216 | |
|
Current portion of capital leases | | | (442 | ) |
Capital leases, less current portion | | | $ | 774 | |
|
Rent expense under operating leases for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 was $1.0 million and $1.0 million, respectively. |
Litigation |
In 1998, Eurosurgical, a French company in the business of sales and marketing of spinal implants, entered into a distribution agreement for the United States, Mexico, Canada, India and Australia with Orthotec, LLC, a California company (“Orthotec”). In 2004, Orthotec sued Eurosurgical in connection with a contractual dispute and a final $9 million judgment was entered against Eurosurgical by a California court in 2006. In 2007, following a default judgment, a federal court in California declared Eurosurgical liable to Orthotec for $30 million in connection with an intellectual property dispute. In 2006, Eurosurgical’s European assets were ultimately acquired by Surgiview, SAS, ("Surgiview"), in a sale agreement, ("the Partial Sale Agreement"), approved by a French court. After this sale, Surgiview became a subsidiary of Scient’x in 2006. Orthotec attempted to recover on Eurosurgical’s obligations by filing a motion in a California court to add Surgiview to the judgment against Eurosurgical on theories including successor liability and fraudulent conveyance. In February 2007, the California court denied Orthotec’s motion, indicating that Orthotec had not carried its burdens of proof. Orthotec chose to not proceed with a further hearing in September 2007. |
In June 2004, HealthpointCapital (Luxembourg) I S.à.r.l. acquired a minority (33.1 percent) interest in Scient’x. In July 2005, Scient’x acquired an approximate 73 percent interest in Surgiview. At that time, HealthpointCapital Partners, L.P. (through a Luxembourg subsidiary) held a minority interest in Scient’x, which in turn held an interest in Surgiview, but HealthpointCapital Partners II, L.P. had no ownership interest in Scient’x or Surgiview. On November 21, 2007, more than a year after the Partial Sale Agreement was executed, HealthpointCapital Partners II, L.P. acquired majority ownership of Scient’x. In May 2008, after the acquisition of Scient’x by HealthpointCapital in 2007, Orthotec sued Scient’x, Surgiview, HealthpointCapital LLC and certain former directors of Scient’x (who also serve on the Company’s board) in a new action in California state court in which it sought (in addition to damages related to other causes of action and punitive damages related thereto) to have the defendants bear responsibility for the $39 million in judgments that had been assessed against Eurosurgical, which, together with interest is now greater than $70 million. On February 10, 2014, the jury reached a verdict in which Surgiview was found to have transferred assets for less than fair market value in connection with Surgiview’s purchase of certain assets of Eurosurgical, and to have interfered with certain contractual rights of Orthotec. Although a formal judgment was never entered, the jury awarded monetary damages in the amount of $47.9 million, plus interest, against Surgiview related to various causes of action alleged by Orthotec. |
In addition, also in May 2008, a similar action was filed in New York against HealthpointCapital, HealthpointCapital LLC, HealthpointCapital Partners, L.P., HealthpointCapital Partners II, L.P., Scient’x and two former directors of Scient’x (who also serve on the Company’s board), in which Orthotec sought, in addition to damages related to other causes of action and punitive damages related thereto, to have the defendant’s bear responsibility for the $39 million in judgments that had been assessed against Eurosurgical, which, together with interest is now greater than $70 million. |
On March 15, 2014, the Company, Orthotec, LLC and certain other parties, including certain directors and affiliates of the Company, entered into a binding term sheet to settle all legal matters between Orthotec and the Company and its directors and affiliates. Pursuant to the binding term sheet, the Company has agreed to pay Orthotec $49 million in cash, with initial cash payments of $1.75 million paid in March 2014 and $15.75 million paid on April 10, 2014. The remaining $31.5 million will be paid to Orthotec in installments of $1.1 million paid quarterly, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2014. HealthpointCapital has agreed to contribute $5 million to the $49 million settlement amount. In addition, a 7% simple interest rate will accrue on the unpaid portion of the $31.5 million. All accrued interest is not payable until the $49 million is paid, and such accrued interest shall be paid in $1.1 million installments each quarter. This settlement will result in mutual releases of all claims and the dismissal of all Orthotec-related litigation matters involving the Company, its directors and affiliates. |
On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5, 2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 17, 2011, an amended complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its directors and officers adding alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. HealthpointCapital, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants in this action. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, about the Company’s business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Scient’x transaction and our financial guidance following the closing of the acquisition. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified relief. The Company believe that the claims are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself against this complaint. However, the outcome of the litigation cannot be predicted at this time and any outcome that is adverse to the Company, regardless of who the defendant is, could have a significant adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. |
On August 25, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, purporting to assert claims on behalf of the Company against all of its directors and certain of its officers and HealthpointCapital. Following the filing of this complaint, similar complaints were filed in the same court and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the same defendants containing similar allegations. The complaint filed in federal court was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice in July 2011. The state court complaints have been consolidated into a single action and the Company has been named as a nominal defendant in the consolidated action. Each complaint alleges that the Company’s directors and certain of its officers breached their fiduciary duties to the Company related to the Scient’x transaction, and by making allegedly false statements that led to unjust enrichment of HealthpointCapital and certain of the Company’s directors. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and an order directing the Company to adopt certain measures purportedly designed to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. On January 8, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims in exchange for corporate governance reforms and payment of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5.25 million, to be paid by the Company’s and HeathpointCapital’s respective insurance carriers. The Company believes the claims are without merit and, subject to final approval of any settlement, intends to vigorously defend itself against these complaints. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of this lawsuit. |
At March 31, 2014, the probable outcome of any of the aforementioned litigation matters that have not reached a settlement cannot be determined nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. Accordingly, in accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to any litigation matters that have not reached a settlement. The Company is and may become involved in various other legal proceedings arising from its business activities. While management does not believe the ultimate disposition of these matters will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and depending on the nature and timing of these proceedings, an unfavorable resolution could materially affect the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period. |
Royalties |
The Company has entered into various intellectual property agreements requiring the payment of royalties based on the sale of products that utilize such intellectual property. These royalties primarily relate to products sold by Alphatec Spine and are calculated either as a percentage of net sales or in one instance on a per-unit sold basis. Royalties are included on the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations as a component of cost of revenues. |