Contractual Commitments and Contingencies | Contractual Commitments and Contingencies Contractual Commitments In addition to the leases noted under Note 5, “ Leases ,” the Company has commitments for meeting space. These leases expire over the 3 years following September 30, 2020 , and generally contain renewal options. The Company anticipates that most of these leases will be renewed or replaced upon expiration. Rent expense for both the three months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019 was $0.3 million . Rent expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019 was $1.0 million and $1.1 million , respectively. These amounts are allocated among cost of sales, research and development and selling, general and administrative expenses. Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous civil claims and lawsuits and subject to regulatory examinations, investigations, and requests for information. Some of these matters involve claims for substantial amounts. The Company’s experience has shown that the damages alleged by plaintiffs or claimants are often overstated, based on unsubstantiated legal theories, unsupported by facts, and/or bear no relation to the ultimate award that a court might grant. Additionally, the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. These factors make it difficult for the Company to provide a meaningful estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes of claims in the aggregate or by individual claim. However, on a case-by-case basis, reserves are established for those legal claims in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company's unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2020 reflect the Company's current best estimate of probable losses associated with these matters, including costs to comply with various settlement agreements, where applicable. The actual costs of resolving these claims, as well as the cost to resolve claims which either are not probable or not estimable at this time, may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved. For more information regarding the Company’s legal proceedings, refer to the disclosure under Item 3, “ Legal Proceedings ” and Note 16, “ Commitments and Contingencies ” in the 2019 Form 10-K. As of September 30, 2020 , the Company has accrued $7.6 million related to the legal proceedings discussed below. The Company paid $7.4 million toward the resolution of legal matters involving the Company during the nine months ended September 30, 2020 . The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters: Shareholder Derivative Suits On December 6, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating three shareholder derivative actions ( Evans v. Petit, et al. filed September 25, 2018, Georgalas v. Petit, et al. filed September 27, 2018, and Roloson v. Petit, et al. filed October 22, 2018) that had been filed in the Northern District of Georgia. On January 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed a verified consolidated shareholder derivative complaint. The consolidated action sets forth claims of breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment against certain former officers, and certain current and former directors, of the Company: Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Michael J. Senken, John E. Cranston, Alexandra O. Haden, Joseph G. Bleser, J. Terry Dewberry, Charles R. Evans, Larry W. Papasan, Luis A. Aguilar, Bruce L. Hack, Charles E. Koob, Neil S. Yeston and Christopher M. Cashman. The allegations generally involve claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to misrepresent its financial statements as a result of improper revenue recognition. The Company filed a motion to stay on February 18, 2019, pending the completion of the investigation by the Company’s Special Litigation Committee. The Special Litigation Committee completed its investigation relating to this action and filed an executive summary of its findings with the Court on July 1, 2019. The parties (together with parties from the Hialeah derivative lawsuit, the Nix and Demaio derivative lawsuit, and the Murphy derivative lawsuit, each described below) held a mediation on February 11, 2020. Following continued discussions, on May 1, 2020, the parties notified the Court that plaintiffs and the Company had reached an agreement in principle to settle this consolidated derivative action, which settlement also encompasses all claims asserted in the Hialeah derivative lawsuit, the Nix and Demaio derivative lawsuit, and the Murphy derivative lawsuit. On September 9, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. Judge Ray entered an Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement on October 8, 2020 and set a hearing for final approval of the settlement for December 21, 2020. The Company has recorded an accrual related to this case and it is included in the accrual amount noted above. On October 29, 2018, the City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System (“ Hialeah ”) filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida (the “ Florida Court ”). The complaint alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against certain former officers, and certain current and former directors, of the Company: Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Michael J. Senken, John E. Cranston, Alexandra O. Haden, Joseph G. Bleser, J. Terry Dewberry, Charles R. Evans, Bruce L. Hack, Charles E. Koob, Larry W. Papasan, and Neil S. Yeston. The allegations generally involve claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to misrepresent its financial statements as a result of improper revenue recognition. The Company moved to stay the action on February 7, 2019, to allow the prior-filed consolidated derivative action in the Northern District of Georgia to be resolved first and to allow the Company’s Special Litigation Committee time to complete its investigation. The Company also filed a motion to dismiss on April 8, 2019. As discussed above, the plaintiff participated in the mediation that took place in connection with the prior-filed consolidated derivative action in the Northern District of Georgia and is a party to the agreement in principle to settle that consolidated derivative action. The agreement in principle provides that the plaintiff in this action will file a notice of dismissal to dismiss its action with prejudice within seven calendar days after the date that the judgment entered by the Northern District of Georgia becomes final. On May 15, 2019, two individuals purporting to be shareholders of the Company filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia. ( Nix and Demaio v. Evans, et al. ) The complaint alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company: Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Michael J. Senken, John E. Cranston, Alexandra O. Haden, Chris Cashman, Lou Roselli, Mark Diaz, Charles R. Evans, Luis A. Aguilar, Joseph G. Bleser, J. Terry Dewberry, Bruce L. Hack, Charles E. Koob, Larry W. Papasan and Neil S. Yeston. The allegations generally involve claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to misrepresent its financial statements as a result of improper revenue recognition. The Court ordered this matter stayed pending the resolution of the consolidated derivative suit pending in the Northern District of Georgia. As discussed above, the plaintiff participated in the mediation that took place in connection with the prior-filed consolidated derivative action in the Northern District of Georgia and is a party to the agreement in principle to settle that consolidated derivative action. The agreement in principle provides that the plaintiffs in this action will file a notice of dismissal to dismiss their action with prejudice within seven calendar days after the date that the judgment entered by the Northern District of Georgia becomes final. On August 12, 2019, John Murphy filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ( Murphy v. Petit, et al. ). The complaint alleged claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against certain former officers, and certain current and former directors, of the Company: Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Michael J. Senken, John E. Cranston, Alexandra O. Haden, Charles R. Evans, Luis A. Aguilar, Joseph G. Bleser, J. Terry Dewberry, Bruce L. Hack, Charles E. Koob, Larry W. Papasan and Neil S. Yeston. The allegations generally involve claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to misrepresent its financial statements as a result of improper revenue recognition. The Company filed a motion to transfer this action to the Northern District of Georgia. Prior to resolution of that motion, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice. As discussed above, the plaintiff participated in the mediation that took place in connection with the prior-filed consolidated derivative action in the Northern District of Georgia and is a party to the agreement in principle to settle that consolidated derivative action. Under the agreement in principle, the plaintiff has agreed that this action shall not be reinstated and, after the judgment entered by the Northern District of Georgia becomes final, this action shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice. Securities Class Action On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two purported securities class actions ( MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 26, 2018). The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP. The amended complaint (the “ Securities Class Action Complaint ”) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ Exchange Act ”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It asserted a class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018. Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various defendants, the lead plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint against the Company, Michael Senken, Pete Petit, William Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert & Holland (Christopher Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March 30, 2020; defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020. The parties have agreed to stay the proceedings until December 18, 2020 to allow for mediation. Investigations United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“ USAO-SDNY ”) Investigation The USAO-SDNY conducted an investigation into, among other things, the Company’s recognition of revenue and practices with certain distributors and customers. The USAO-SDNY requested that the Company provide it with copies of all information the Company furnished to the SEC and made additional requests for information. The USAO-SDNY conducted interviews of various individuals, including employees and former employees of the Company. The USAO-SDNY issued indictments in November 2019 against former executives Messrs. Petit and Taylor for securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud, to make false filings with the SEC, and to influence improperly the conduct of audits relating to alleged misconduct that resulted in inflated revenue figures for fiscal 2015. The Company is cooperating with the USAO-SDNY. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Office of Inspector General (“ VA-OIG ”) and Civil Division of the Department of Justice (“ DOJ-Civil ”) Subpoenas and/or Investigations VA-OIG has issued subpoenas to the Company seeking, among other things, information concerning the Company’s financial relationships with VA clinicians. DOJ-Civil has requested similar information. The Company has cooperated fully and produced responsive information to VA-OIG and DOJ-Civil. Periodically, VA-OIG has requested additional documents and information regarding payments to individual VA clinicians. Most recently, on June 3, 2020, the Company received a subpoena from the VA-OIG requesting information regarding the Company’s financial relationships and interactions with two healthcare providers at the VA Long Beach Healthcare System. The Company has continued to cooperate and respond to these requests. United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of North Carolina (“ USAO-MDNC ”) Investigation On January 9, 2020, the USAO-MDNC informed the Company that it is investigating the Company’s financial relationships with two former clinicians at the Durham VA Medical Center. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. Qui Tam Actions On January 19, 2017, a former employee of the Company filed a qui tam False Claims Act complaint in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina ( United States of America, ex rel. Jon Vitale v. MiMedx Group, Inc. ) alleging that the Company’s donations to the patient assistance program, Patient Access Network Foundation, violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and resulted in submission of false claims to the government. The government declined to intervene and the complaint was unsealed on August 10, 2018. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on October 1, 2018. The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on May 15, 2019. The case is in discovery. Former Employee Litigation On November 19, 2018, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia ( Michael J. Senken v. MiMedx Group, Inc. ) in which he claims that the Company has breached its obligations under the Company’s charter and bylaws to advance to him, and indemnify him for, his legal fees and costs that he incurred in connection with certain Company internal investigations and litigation. The Company filed its answer denying the plaintiff’s claims on April 19, 2019. To date, no deadlines have been established by the court. On January 21, 2019, a former employee filed a complaint in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Richland County, South Carolina ( Jon Michael Vitale v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et. al. ) against the Company alleging retaliation, defamation and unjust enrichment and seeking monetary damages. The former employee claims he was retaliated against after raising concerns related to insurance fraud and later defamed by comments concerning the indictments of three South Carolina VA employees. On February 19, 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 8, 2019, which was denied by the Court. This case is in discovery. Defamation Claims On June 4, 2018, Sparrow Fund Management, LP (“ Sparrow ”) filed a complaint against the Company and Mr. Petit, including claims for defamation and civil conspiracy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ( Sparrow Fund Management, L.P. v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et. al. ). The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief and alleges the defendants commenced a campaign to publicly discredit Sparrow by falsely claiming it was a short seller who engaged in illegal and criminal behavior by spreading false information in an attempt to manipulate the price of our common stock. On March 31, 2019, a judge granted defendants’ motions to dismiss in full, but allowed Sparrow the ability to file an amended complaint. The Magistrate has recommended Sparrow’s motion for leave to amend be granted in part and denied in part and the Judge adopted the Magistrate’s recommendation. Sparrow filed its amended complaint against MiMedx (Mr. Petit has been dropped from the lawsuit) on April 3, 2020 and the Company filed its answer. This case is in discovery. On June 17, 2019, the principals of Viceroy Research (“ Viceroy ”), filed suit in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida ( Fraser John Perring et. al. v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et. al. ) against the Company and Mr. Petit, alleging defamation and malicious prosecution based on the defendants’ alleged campaign to publicly discredit Viceroy and the lawsuit the Company previously filed against the plaintiffs, but which the Company subsequently dismissed without prejudice. On November 1, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Petit’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies in its claims against Mr. Petit, which they did on November 21, 2019. The Company filed its answer on December 20, 2019. Intellectual Property Litigation The NuTech Action On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against NuTech Medical, Inc. (“ NuTech ”) and DCI Donor Services, Inc. (“ DCI ”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ( MiMedx Group, Inc. v. NuTech Medical, Inc. et. al. ). The Company has alleged that NuTech and DCI infringed and continue to infringe the Company’s patents through the manufacture, use, sale and/or offering of their tissue graft product. The Company has also asserted that NuTech knowingly and willfully made false and misleading representations about its products to customers and prospective customers. The Company is seeking permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The case was stayed pending the restatement of the Company’s financial statements. Since the Company has completed its restatement, the case resumed. The parties have reached a settlement in the matter and the case will be dismissed with prejudice. The Osiris Action On February 20, 2019, Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (“ Osiris ”) refiled its trade secret and breach of contract action against the Company (which had been dismissed in a different forum) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ( Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. v. MiMedx Group, Inc. ). The parties have reached a settlement in the matter and the case was dismissed with prejudice on October 26, 2020. Other Matters Under the Florida Business Corporation Act and agreements with its current and former officers and directors, the Company is obligated to indemnify its current and former officers and directors who are made party to a proceeding, including a proceeding brought by or in the right of the corporation, with certain exceptions, and to advance expenses to defend such matters. The Company has already borne substantial costs to satisfy these indemnification and expense advance obligations and expects to continue to do so in the future. In addition to the matters described above, the Company is a party to a variety of other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of the Company’s business, none of which is deemed to be individually material at this time. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial position or liquidity. |