Commitments and Contingencies | 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 3 years following December 31, 2020, and generally contain renewal options. The Company anticipates that most of these leases will be renewed or replaced upon expiration. The estimated meeting space commitments are as follows (in thousands): Years Ended December 31, 2021 $ 169 2022 889 2023 — $ 1,058 See Note 5, “ Leases” for further information regarding maturities of operating lease liabilities. Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries may routinely be a party to many pending and threatened legal, regulatory, and governmental actions and proceedings (including those described below). In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly where the plaintiffs or claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Company generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual recovery, loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company accrues a liability when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probably and estimable. The Company's financial statements at December 31, 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. As of December 31, 2020, the Company had accrued $10.0 million related to the matters described below. The Company paid $7.4 million to settle legal proceedings during 2020. In addition, $3.5 million was paid on the Company’s behalf through an insurance provider during 2020. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had accrued $12.8 million related to legal proceedings and other matters of litigation. The actual costs of resolving these matters may be in excess of the amounts reserved. The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters: 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. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020, which remain pending. At this time, given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the securities class action described above. In the event of an adverse judgment or material settlement with respect to the securities class actions described above, the Company may be required to pay significant damages or settlement costs. Successful claims brought against the Company with respect to the securities class action in excess of its available insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results of operations. 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. The hearing on final approval was held on December 21, 2020 and the Court entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement the same day. 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 settling that consolidated derivative action. In accordance with the terms of the settlement, Hialeah filed a motion for leave to dismiss its derivative action with prejudice on January 4, 2021. 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 plaintiffs participated in the mediation that took place in connection with the prior-filed consolidated derivative action in the Northern District of Georgia and are a party to the agreement settling that consolidated derivative action. In accordance with the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement and voluntary dismissal with prejudice on January 13, 2021. 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 settling that consolidated derivative action. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, this action is deemed dismissed with prejudice. 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 conducted interviews of various individuals, including employees and former employees of the Company. The USAO-SDNY issued an indictment in November 2019 against former executives Messrs. Petit and Taylor charging them with one count each for (i) securities fraud and (ii) 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. On November 19, 2020, the jury found Mr. Petit guilty of securities fraud and Mr. Taylor guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The Company has cooperated with the investigation, and the USAO-SDNY recently advised the Company that, based on the USAO-SDNY’s current understanding of facts, it does not intend to pursue further action or remedies against the Company. 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. 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 has cooperated with the investigation and reached an agreement in principal to resolve this issue with the government. On February 8, 2021, the Company received a subpoena issued by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General seeking records regarding the sales of the Company’s micronized and other products to federal medical facilities and federal contracting offices, including those operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense. The subpoena also seeks information regarding the Company’s communications with the FDA regarding its products. The Company understands that the Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington Civil Division is overseeing the investigation, which is being conducted principally by agents employed by the Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Command. The Company is cooperating with the government’s investigation and at this time the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the investigation, including whether the investigation will result in any action or proceeding against us. 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 parties have reached an agreement to resolve this matter. On January 20, 2017, two former employees of the Company, filed a qui tam False Claims Act complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ( Kruchoski et. al. v. MiMedx Group, Inc. ). An amended complaint was filed on January 27, 2017. The operative complaint alleges that the Company failed to provide truthful, complete and accurate information about the pricing offered to commercial customers in connection with the Company’s Federal Supply Schedule contract. On May 7, 2019, the Department of Justice (“ DOJ ”) declined to intervene, and the case was unsealed. In April 2020, without admitting the allegations, the Company agreed to pay $6.5 million to the DOJ to resolve this matter. This amount was paid during the year ended December 31, 2020. Accordingly, there is no liability outstanding with respect to this matter as of December 31, 2020. 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. In December 2019, MiMedx received notice of a complaint filed in July 2018 with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) section of the Department of Labor (“DOL”) by Thomas Tierney, a former Regional Sales Director, against MiMedx and the referenced individuals, Tierney v. MiMedx Group, Inc., Parker Petit, William Taylor, Christopher Cashman, Thornton Kuntz, Jr. and Alexandra Haden, DOL No. 4-5070-18-243. Mr. Tierney alleged that he was terminated from MiMedx in retaliation for reporting concerns about revenue recognition practices, compliance issues, and the corporate culture, in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The parties settled this matter and OSHA dismissed the complaint on May 20, 2020. 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. The parties have reached an agreement to resolve this matter. On January 12, 2021, the Company filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial District in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida ( MiMedx Group, Inc. v. Petit, et. al. ) against its former CEO, Parker “Pete” Petit, and its former COO, Bill Taylor, seeking a determination of its rights and obligations under indemnification agreements with Petit and Taylor following a federal jury’s guilty verdict against Petit for securities fraud and Taylor for conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to indemnify or advance expenses to Petit and Taylor in connection with certain cases to which Petit and Taylor are parties and also seeking to recoup moneys previously paid on behalf of Petit and Taylor in connection with such cases. 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. On April 3, 2020, Sparrow filed its amended complaint against MiMedx (Mr. Petit has been dropped from the lawsuit) , on April 3, 2020 and the Company subsequently 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. The parties have agreed to a stay of this matter in order to hold a mediation in March 2021. 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 on 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 was 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 Pursuant to the Florida Business Corporation Act and indemnification agreements with its former Chairman and CEO, Parker H. “Pete” Petit, and former COO, William Taylor, the Company has advanced defense costs to Petit and Taylor in connection with certain legal proceedings arising from their corporate status as former directors and officers of the Company. Following the jury verdict against Petit for securities fraud and Taylor for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, on January 12, 2021, the Company filed suit in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Miami-Dade County ( MiMedx Group, Inc. v. Petit and Taylor ) seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that a conviction of Petit and Taylor means the Company has no further obligation to indemnify or advance expenses to them, (2) reimbursement of amounts previously advanced to Petit and Taylor, and (3) any other relief deemed just and proper by the court. Given the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, the Company cannot estimate recoveries, ranges of recoveries, losses or ranges of losses in these proceedings, nor can it predict whether it may be required to continue to indemnify or advance defense costs to Petit and Taylor. 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. |