Commitments and Contingencies | Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims and governmental inspections, audits or investigations pertaining to issues such as contract disputes, product liability, tax matters, patents and trademarks, advertising, governmental regulations, employment and other matters, including the matters described below. Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into with Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”) prior to the spin-off, legal proceedings, claims and other liabilities that are primarily related to our business are generally our responsibility and we are obligated to indemnify and hold Kimberly-Clark harmless for such matters (“Indemnification Obligation”). We have incurred expenses of $3.7 million and $6.6 million related to these matters in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, respectively, compared to $3.6 million and $17.3 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively. Surgical Gown Litigation and Related Matters Bahamas Surgery Center We have an Indemnification Obligation for the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., “Bahamas” On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $4 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for $0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $100 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff’s UCL claim and request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff’s request for restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. On May 25, 2017, we filed three post-trial motions: a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; a motion to decertify the class; and a motion for new trial, remittitur, or amendment of the judgment. On March 30, 2018, the court ruled on the post-trial motions. The court denied all three, except it granted in part the motion to reduce the award of punitive damages to a 5 to 1 ratio with compensatory damages. On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against us and Kimberly-Clark. The judgment against us is $0.3 million in compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark is $3.9 million in compensatory damages, $1.3 million in pre-judgment interest and $19.4 million in punitive damages. On April 12, 2018, we filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the Bahamas matter. Kimberly-Clark Corporation We have notified Kimberly-Clark that we have reserved our rights to challenge any purported obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for the punitive damages awarded against them. In connection with our reservation of rights, on May 1, 2017, we filed a complaint in the matter styled Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation Bahamas Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Halyard Health, Inc., Bahamas Bahamas Government Investigation In June 2015, we were served with a subpoena from the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General (“VA OIG”) seeking information related to the design, manufacture, testing, sale and promotion of MicroCool and other Company surgical gowns, and, in July 2015, we also became aware that the subpoena and an earlier VA OIG subpoena served on Kimberly-Clark requesting information about gown sales to the federal government are related to a United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation. In May 2016, April 2017 and September 2018, we received additional subpoenas from the DOJ seeking further information related to Company gowns. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ investigation. Shahinian On October 12, 2016, after the DOJ and various States declined to intervene, a qui tam matter was unsealed and a complaint subsequently served on us in a matter styled U.S. ex rel. Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Shahinian” We may have an Indemnification Obligation for the Shahinian Kromenaker On March 17, 2017, the DOJ submitted a filing declining to intervene in another qui tam matter, and the complaint was unsealed and subsequently served on Kimberly-Clark and Avanos. That matter is styled U.S. ex rel. Kromenaker v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., We may have an Indemnification Obligation for certain parts of this matter under the distribution agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. Jackson We were served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., Richardson, Chiu and Pick We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Margaret C. Richardson Trustee of the Survivors Trust Dated 6/12/84 for the Benefit of the H&M Richardson Revocable Trust v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., “Richardson” Kai Chiu v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al Richardson Lukas Pick v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al. Richardson Chiu Medline Industries We were also served with a complaint in the matter styled Medline Industries, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Halyard Health, Inc., et al. Bahamas Shahinian Medline Industries, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Halyard Health, Inc., et al. We may have an Indemnification Obligation for this matter under the distribution agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. Naeyaert On April 13, 2017, Kimberly-Clark was served with a complaint in the matter styled Christopher Naeyaert v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., Bahamas Bahamas, We may have an Indemnification Obligation for this matter under the distribution agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. Patent Litigation We operate in an industry characterized by extensive patent litigation and competitors may claim that our products infringe upon their intellectual property. Resolution of patent litigation or other intellectual property claims is typically time consuming and costly and can result in significant damage awards and injunctions that could prevent the manufacture and sale of the affected products or require us to make significant royalty payments in order to continue selling the affected products. At any given time we may be involved as either a plaintiff or a defendant in a number of patent infringement actions, the outcomes of which may not be known for prolonged periods of time. General While we maintain general and professional liability, product liability and other insurance, our insurance policies may not cover all of these matters and may not fully cover liabilities arising out of these matters. In addition, we may be obligated to indemnify our directors and officers against these matters. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not materially impact our liquidity, access to capital markets or ability to conduct our daily operations. As of September 30, 2018, we have an accrued liability for the matters described herein. The accrued liability is included in “Accrued Expenses” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. Our estimate of these liabilities is based on facts and circumstances existing at this time, along with other variables. Factors that may affect our estimate include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in the number of lawsuits filed against us, including the potential for similar, duplicate or “copycat” lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions, including lawsuits that bring causes or action or allege violations of law with regard to additional products; (ii) changes in the legal costs of defending such claims; (iii) changes in the nature of the lawsuits filed against us, (iv) changes in the applicable law governing any legal claims against us; (v) a determination that our assumptions used in estimating the liability are no longer reasonable; and (vi) the uncertainties associated with the judicial process, including adverse judgments rendered by courts or juries. Thus, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be different than the accrued amount. Additionally, the above matters, regardless of the outcome, could disrupt our business and result in substantial costs and diversion of management attention. Environmental Compliance We are subject to federal, state and local environmental protection laws and regulations with respect to our business operations and are operating in compliance with, or taking action aimed at ensuring compliance with, these laws and regulations. None of our compliance obligations with environmental protection laws and regulations, individually or in the aggregate, is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. |