Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Unconditional Purchase Obligations. The Company has a contract, which was effective September 2014, to purchase finished instruments through August 2019. Based on contractual pricing at April 2, 2016, the remaining minimum purchase obligation totaled $1,437 . Purchases under the contract totaled approximately $57 for the three months ended April 2, 2016. These purchases are not in excess of forecasted requirements. Legal & Environmental Matters. The Company is involved, from time to time, in various contractual, product liability, intellectual property and other claims and disputes incidental to its business. Currently, there is no environmental or other litigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened, that the Company expects to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. While litigation is subject to uncertainties and the outcome of litigated matters is not predictable with assurance, the Company currently believes that the disposition of all pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened claims and disputes, individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Under the terms of the separation agreement between the Company and SMI, the Company agreed to indemnify SMI and its related entities from and against any and all liabilities relating to, arising out of or resulting from: any failure by the Company to pay, perform or otherwise promptly discharge any of the liabilities the Company agreed to assume with the Spin-Off; any of the Company's liabilities defined in the Merger Agreement; and any breach of any of the Merger Agreement, Separation Agreement or IP Cross-License Agreement. Liabilities that result from these obligations could result in significant, and in some cases uninsured, financial obligations. The Company does not believe this will have a significant impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In September 2013, Xodus Medical Inc., Alessio Pigazzi and Glenn Keilar (collectively “Xodus”) filed suit against Prime Medical, LLC (“Prime”), and Specialty Surgical Instrumentation, Inc. d/b/a Symmetry Surgical Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under cause number 2:13-cv-01372-AJS. In the lawsuit Xodus alleged that Prime, a manufacturer of products Symmetry Surgical distributes, had infringed on two of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,511,314 and US Patent No. 8,464,720 (the “Xodus Patents”) and that Symmetry Surgical was liable to it for damages resulting from selling products that infringed on the Xodus Patents. Symmetry Surgical’s Distribution Agreement with Prime provides Symmetry Surgical with full indemnification for these claims, and Prime has paid for all costs of litigation thus far. On February 24, 2014 the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office ("USPTO") found substantial questions regarding the patentability of the Xodus Patents and on July 10, 2014 the USPTO rejected both of the Xodus Patents. Xodus has appealed to the full Board of the USPTO, a process that should be concluded in fiscal year 2016. Should the USPTO reverse its prior two findings, and should the US District Court find that Prime’s products infringe on the Xodus Patents, then Symmetry Surgical may be found liable to Xodus for some percentage of its sales of the Prime products, to the extent that Prime is unable to satisfy its indemnity obligations. On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint challenging the company’s former parent’s merger and the Company’s spin-out as a stand-alone public company was filed by Resolution Partners, an alleged stockholder of SMI, and all others similarly situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana. The complaint named as defendants Symmetry Medical Inc. (“SMI”), the members of the board of directors of SMI, Genstar Capital LLC, Tecomet’s sponsor (‘‘Genstar’’), Tecomet, Holdings and TecoSym Inc. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleges that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material information. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees. The parties settled the suit prior to the consummation of the transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either through agreement or via a court hearing. The Company has agreed with SMI to share equally in any fee award, up to 50% of the remaining insurance deductible. The parties have agreed to a settlement of all claims based on the Form 8-k that was filed prior to the closing on the transaction and which shared additional information related to it. There is a settlement conference scheduled for May 13, 2016 to confirm settlement. The Company does not believe this will have a significant impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |