Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Contractual Commitments The Company has commitments for meeting spaces, generally for hotel and conference spaces for company functions. These commitments generally contain renewal options. The estimated meeting space commitments are as follows (in thousands): Year ending December 31, Meeting Space Commitments 2023 $ 989 2024 394 Total $ 1,383 Separation Agreement with Timothy R. Wright On September 15, 2022, the Company entered into a Separation Agreement and General Release with Timothy R. Wright, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Company (the “ Separation Agreement ”). Pursuant to the terms of the Separation Agreement and Mr. Wright’s general release of all claims against the Company, the Company will pay Mr. Wright a total of $3.1 million in cash in a series of installments through September 2024. The terms of the severance benefits provided in the Separation Agreement were the same as those provided for in the original employment Letter Agreement between Mr. Wright and the Company dated April 8, 2019. The $3.1 million was recorded as part of selling, general and administrative expense on the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2022. Of the $3.1 million, $1.9 million is reflected in accrued compensation and $1.2 million is reflected in other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022. No payments were required to be made to Mr. Wright under the terms of the Separation Agreement during the year ended December 31, 2022. Nordic Agreement In June 2022, the Company entered into a collaboration agreement (the “ Nordic Agreement ”) with Nordic Bioscience Clinical Development A/S (“ NBCD ”) to provide full operational support for the Company’s upcoming Knee Osteoarthritis (“ KOA ”) clinical trial program. As part of the agreement, NBCD will perform site selection and monitoring, manage patient recruitment and enrollment, data management, statistical analysis and reporting activities for the duration of the trial. Under the terms of the Nordic Agreement, as of December 31, 2022, the Company was obligated to pay $13.3 million upon the achievement of specified milestones over the course of the clinical trial. The milestones are based upon various factors including, but not limited to, site selection and enrollment, patient enrollment, patient completion, and certain other activities related to clinical trial operations. These milestone payments are revised semi-annually based on fluctuations in the consumer price index. The Company has the ability to terminate the Nordic Agreement with 30 days written notice to NBCD. At such time, the Company would be required to pay for services performed through the date of termination and any non-cancelable obligations. In addition to the $13.3 million, the Company will reimburse NBCD for actual expenses incurred related to third-party vendors to be contracted and managed by NBCD. As of December 31, 2022, the Company has paid $2.0 million under the Nordic Agreement, relating to milestones which have been achieved from inception through that date. During the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company recognized $1.0 million of expense related to the Nordic Agreement. This amount is included as part of research and development expense in the consolidated statement of operations. The remaining $1.0 million is reflected in prepaid expenses on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022. In January 2023, the Company executed a change order to the Nordic Agreement. Refer to Note 21, Subsequent Events , for more details. Turn Agreement On December 7, 2022, the Company acquired intellectual property rights pursuant to a Platform Intellectual Property License (the “Turn Agreement” ) with Global Health Solutions, Inc. (d.b.a. Turn Therapeutics or “Turn” ). The Turn Agreement provided MIMEDX with an exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable license to use Turn’s proprietary antimicrobial technology platform (PermaFusion®) to develop antimicrobial line extensions and new products. In addition, the Turn Agreement granted the Company the commercial rights to Turn’s placental collagen matrix product, FleX™ AM (“ FleX ”), contingent upon Turn’s receipt of FDA 510(k) clearance and other conditions. During the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company paid $1.0 million upon the execution of the Turn Agreement to acquire the license. This amount was capitalized and is included as part of intangible assets, net, on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022. The Company is obligated to make additional payments upon the meeting of regulatory and product commercial milestones, including $9.6 million if and when Turn receives 510(k) clearance from the FDA for FleX. This amount is not reflected in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022. Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries may be a party to 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 probable and estimable. The Company's financial statements at December 31, 2022 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, 2022, the Company had reserved $0.2 million related to expected settlement costs related to legal matters. The Company paid $0.7 million toward the resolution of legal matters involving the Company during the year ended December 31, 2022. In addition, insurance providers paid $0.6 million on the Company’s behalf to settle legal matters. The Company paid $6.7 million to settle legal proceedings during 2021. In addition, $1.1 million was paid on the Company’s behalf through an insurance provider during 2021 relating directly to settlement matters. In addition, during 2021, the Company received funds from certain director and officer insurance policies for previously-incurred legal expenses under the Company’s indemnification agreements. These funds were recognized as a reduction to investigation, restatement and related expense on the consolidated statement of operations. 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. The actual costs of resolving these matters may be in excess of the amounts reserved. 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 (“ CPFI ”) as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, CPFI filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. “Pete” Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP. The amended 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, CPFI was granted leave to file an amended complaint. CPFI filed its amended complaint against the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. 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. On March 25, 2021, the Court granted defendants’ respective motions to dismiss, finding that CPFI lacked standing to bring the underlying claims and also could not establish loss causation because it sold all of its shares in MIMEDX prior to any corrective disclosures, and dismissed the case. On April 22, 2021, CPFI filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and for leave to amend to add a new plaintiff to attempt to cure the standing and loss causation issues. The Company opposed CPFI’s motions and the hearing on the same was held on September 24, 2021. On January 28, 2022, the Court denied CPFI’s motion to reconsider and motion to substitute class representative. On February 25, 2022, CPFI filed a Notice of Appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held on January 24, 2023. Welker v. MiMedx, et. al. On November 4, 2022, Troy Welker and Min Turner, former optionholders of the Company, brought a lawsuit in Fulton County State Court against the Company, former directors Terry Dewberry and Charles Evans, and former officers Parker H. “Pete” Petit, William C. Taylor, and Michael Senken alleging violations of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“ RICO ”) Act against all defendants and conspiracy to violate the Georgia RICO Act and breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants. The Company is defending against the allegations and removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand back to state court, which is currently pending. Investigations 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 the Company. Former Employee Litigation and Related Matters 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 H. “Pete” Petit, and its former COO, William C. 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 amounts previously paid on behalf of Petit and Taylor in connection with such cases. On April 22, 2021, Petit and Taylor filed an answer and asserted counterclaims against the Company alleging breach of their indemnification agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to their indemnification agreements, and seeking a declaration that the Company remains obligated to indemnify and advance fees in connection with certain cases. Petit and Taylor simultaneously filed a motion seeking to compel the Company to advance and reinstate its payments of Petit and Taylor’s legal expenses. The Company opposed Petit and Taylor’s motion and a hearing was set for June 23, 2021. At the joint request of the parties, the hearing was cancelled to allow the parties to attend a mediation to attempt a resolution of this matter; such mediation was held on August 11, 2021. Following the mediation, the Company and Taylor reached an agreement to settle the matter between them. Negotiations with Petit are ongoing. 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 may 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. Previously-Settled Matters The matters discussed below have been settled with the counterparty and their resolution has been disclosed in previously-issued financial statements. There are no contingent or continuing obligations associated with these 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. 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 involved 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. Qui Tam Matters 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. Former Employee Matters 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. 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 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 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 reached a settlement in the matter and the case was dismissed with prejudice on October 26, 2020. |