| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings FDA Warning Letter . On December 31, 2015, LivaNova received a Warning Letter (the “Warning Letter”) dated December 29, 2015 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) alleging certain violations of FDA regulations applicable to medical device manufacturers at the Company’s Munich, Germany and Arvada, Colorado facilities. The FDA inspected the Munich facility from August 24, 2015 to August 27, 2015 and the Arvada facility from August 24, 2015 to September 1, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the FDA issued a Form 483 identifying two observed non-conformities with certain regulatory requirements at the Munich facility. We did not receive a Form 483 in connection with the FDA’s inspection of the Arvada facility. Following the receipt of the Form 483, we provided written responses to the FDA describing corrective and preventive actions that were underway or to be taken to address the FDA’s observations at the Munich facility. The Warning Letter responded in part to our responses and identified other alleged violations not previously included in the Form 483. The Warning Letter further stated that our 3T Heater Cooler devices and other devices we manufactured at our Munich facility are subject to refusal of admission into the United States until resolution of the issues set forth by the FDA in the Warning Letter. The FDA has informed us that the import alert is limited to the 3T Heater Cooler devices, but that the agency reserves the right to expand the scope of the import alert if future circumstances warrant such action. The Warning Letter did not request that existing users cease using the 3T Heater Cooler device, and manufacturing and shipment of all of our products other than the 3T Heater Cooler remain unaffected by the import limitation. To help clarify these issues for current customers, we issued an informational Customer Letter in January 2016, and that same month agreed with the FDA on a process for shipping 3T Heater Cooler devices to existing U.S. users pursuant to a certificate of medical necessity program. Lastly, the Warning Letter states that premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which certain Quality System regulation deviations identified in the Warning Letter are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. However, the Warning Letter only specifically names the Munich and Arvada facilities in this restriction, which do not manufacture or design devices subject to premarket approval. We are continuing to work diligently to remediate the FDA’s inspectional observations for the Munich facility as well as the additional issues identified in the Warning Letter. We take these matters seriously and intend to respond timely and fully to the FDA’s requests. The Warning Letter had no impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in our fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, and the impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2016 was not material. We believe that less than 1% of our fiscal year 2016 consolidated sales will be impacted by this Warning Letter and the FDA’s concerns will be resolved without a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in our fiscal year 2016. Baker, Miller et al v. LivaNova PLC . On February 12, 2016, LivaNova was alerted that a class action complaint had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania with respect to the Company’s 3T Heater Cooler devices, naming as evidence, in part, the Warning Letter issued by the FDA in December 2015. The named plaintiffs to the complaint are two individuals who underwent open heart surgeries at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in 2015, and the complaint alleges that: (i) patients were exposed to a harmful form of bacteria, known as nontubercuous mycobacterium (“NTM”), from LivaNova’s 3T Heater Cooler devices; and (ii) LivaNova knew or should have known that design or manufacturing defects in 3T Heater Cooler devices can lead to NTM bacterial colonization, regardless of the cleaning and disinfection procedures used (and recommended by the Company). Named plaintiffs seek to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between 2011 and 2015 and who are currently asymptomatic for NTM infection (approximately 3,600 patients). The putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks: (i) declaratory relief finding the 3T Heater Cooler devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses; (ii) medical monitoring; (iii) general damages; and (iv) attorneys’ fees. On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH and Sorin Group USA, Inc. as defendants. At LivaNova, patient safety is of the utmost importance, and significant resources are dedicated to the delivery of safe, high-quality products. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Given the early stage of this matter, we cannot, however, give any assurances that additional legal proceedings making the same or similar allegations will not be filed against LivaNova PLC or one of its subsidiaries, nor that the resolution of the complaint and any related litigation in connection therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. SNIA Litigation. Sorin S.p.A. was created as a result of a spin-off (the “Sorin spin-off”) from SNIA S.p.A. (“SNIA”). The Sorin spin-off, which spun off SNIA’s medical technology division, became effective on January 2, 2004. Pursuant to the Italian Civil Code, in a spin-off transaction, the parent and the spun-off company can be held jointly liable for certain indebtedness or liabilities of the pre-spin-off company in two scenarios: • The parent and the spun-off company can be held jointly liable, up to the actual value of the shareholders’ equity conveyed or received, for “debt” ( debiti ) of the pre-spin-off company that existed at the time of the spin-off. This joint liability is secondary in nature and, consequently, arises only when such indebtedness is not satisfied by the company owing such indebtedness. We estimate that at the time of the spin-off, the value of the residual shareholders’ equity received was approximately €573 million . • The parent and the spun-off company can be held jointly liable, up to the actual value of the shareholders’ equity conveyed or received, for “liabilities” ( elementi del passivo ) whose allocation between the parties to the spin-off cannot be determined based on the spin-off plan. For purposes of the Italian Civil Code, Sorin believes and has argued that the term “debt” ( debiti ) is generally understood to refer to indebtedness as reflected on a debtor’s balance sheet for accounting purposes in accordance with the European Union directive pursuant to which these provisions of the Italian Civil Code were enacted, which translates “ debiti ” as “obligations.” The European Union directive uses “obligations” to refer to indebtedness owed to creditors and the term “liabilities” to refer to general liabilities. In connection with the Sorin spin-off, the assets and liabilities of SNIA’s medical technology division were allocated to Sorin, and the remaining assets and liabilities of SNIA, including those related to the Caffaro chemical operations (as described below), were allocated to SNIA. Between 1906 and 2010, SNIA’s subsidiaries Caffaro Chimica S.r.l. and Caffaro S.r.l. and their predecessors (the “SNIA Subsidiaries”), conducted certain chemical operations (the “Caffaro Chemical Operations”), at sites in Torviscosa, Brescia and Colleferro, Italy (the “Caffaro Chemical Sites”). These activities allegedly resulted in substantial and widely dispersed contamination of soil, water and ground water caused by a variety of hazardous substances released at the Caffaro Chemical Sites. In 2009 and 2010, SNIA and the SNIA Subsidiaries filed for insolvency. In connection with SNIA’s Italian insolvency proceedings, the Italian Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of Land and Sea (the “Italian Ministry of the Environment”), sought compensation from SNIA in an aggregate amount of €3.4 billion for remediation costs relating to the environmental damage at the Caffaro Chemical Sites allegedly caused by the Caffaro Chemical Operations. The amount, which was based on certain clean-up activities and precautionary measures set forth in three technical reports prepared by ISPRA, the technical agency of the Ministry of Environment. Similar activities and precautionary measures have also been requested to the SNIA Subsidiaries by the Ministry of Environment and other competent authorities in the context of the administrative proceeding for the remediation of the Caffaro Chemical Sites. However, these administrative acts have been invalidated in part by courts in Friuli Venezia Giulia (for the site of Torviscosa) and Brescia, which deemed them based on an inadequate fact-finding. The administrative proceeding regarding the Torviscosa site is also currently subject to a criminal investigation by the Public Prosecutor of Udine. In addition, partial final remediation plans have been approved and implemented for the Colleferro site. These plans provide remediation activities significantly different, and entailing much lower expenses, from those included in the ISPRA’s technical reports which ground the request for compensation of the abovementioned amount. Notwithstanding the above, that amount, remains in dispute, and no final remediation plan has been approved for the other site. In September 2011, the Bankruptcy Court of Udine, and in July 2014, the Bankruptcy Court of Milan each held that the Italian Ministry of the Environment and other Italian government agencies were not creditors of SNIA and the SNIA Subsidiaries in connection with the agencies’ claims against them in the context of their Italian insolvency proceedings. LivaNova (as the successor to Sorin in the litigation) believes these findings are influential but not binding in other Italian courts, including civil courts. The Italian Ministry of the Environment and the other Italian government agencies have appealed both decisions, but in January 2016, the Court of Udine rejected the appeal (with a decision which has been challenged before the Italian Supreme Court), while the appeal before the Court of Milan is currently pending. In January 2012, SNIA filed a civil action against Sorin in the Civil Court of Milan on the basis of the Italian Civil Code’s provisions for potential joint liability of a parent and a spun-off company in the context of a spin-off, as described above, seeking to determine Sorin’s joint liability with SNIA for damages allegedly related to the Caffaro Chemical Operations (as described below). SNIA’s civil action against Sorin also named the Italian Ministry of the Environment and other Italian government agencies, as defendants, in order to have them bound to a potential ruling. The Italian Ministry of the Environment, together with the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and certain additional Italian government agencies that also sought compensation from SNIA for the alleged environmental damages, subsequently counterclaimed against Sorin, seeking to have Sorin found jointly liable to them with SNIA, on the same basis. SNIA and these government agencies asked the court to find inapplicable to the Sorin spin-off the Italian Civil Code’s caps on potential joint liability of parties to a spin-off, which limit such joint liability to the actual value of the shareholders’ equity received, on the basis that the Sorin spin-off was planned prior to the date such caps were enacted under the Italian Civil Code, and despite the fact that the Sorin spin-off became effective after such date. Sorin sought to contest SNIA’s claims against Sorin, in their entirety, due to: • the Italian bankruptcy courts’ previous findings that the Italian Ministry of the Environment and other Italian government agencies were not creditors of SNIA and the SNIA subsidiaries in connection with the agencies’ claims against them; • Sorin’s belief that the alleged liabilities related to the Caffaro Chemical Operations did not constitute indebtedness of SNIA at the time of the Sorin spin-off, and thus that Sorin should not be held liable under the Italian Civil Code’s provisions relating to joint liability for indebtedness in the context of spin-offs, as described above; and • the allocation to SNIA of the assets and liabilities related to the Caffaro Chemical Operations in connection with the Sorin spin-off, and Sorin’s belief that Sorin should therefore not be liable under the Italian Civil Code’s provisions relating to joint liability in the context of spin-offs for liabilities of indeterminate allocation, as described above. A hearing to submit final claims ( precisazione delle conclusioni ) in connection with SNIA’s civil action was held in September 2015 and parties have since filed final defense briefs. A favorable decision pertaining to the case was delivered in judgment No. 4101/2016 on April 1, 2016 (the “Decision”). In its Decision the Court of Milan dismissed the legal actions of SNIA in Amministrazione Straordinaria and of the Italian Public Administration (the “Public Administration”) against Sorin (now LivaNova PLC), further requiring the Public Administration to pay Sorin €300,000 , as legal fees (of which €50,000 jointly with SNIA). Neither of the losing parties has yet filed an appeal in this case. LivaNova (as successor to Sorin in the litigation) continues to believe that the risk of material loss relating to the SNIA litigation is not probable as a result of the reasons and recent court decisions described above. We also believe that the amount of potential losses relating to the SNIA litigation is, in any event, not estimable given that the underlying damages, related remediation costs, which party would be responsible for which portion, which party is responsible for which time period, all of which remains in dispute and that no final decision on a remediation plan has been approved. As a result, LivaNova has not made any accrual in connection with the SNIA litigation. Pursuant to European Union, United Kingdom and Italian cross-border merger regulations applicable to the Mergers, legacy Sorin’s liabilities, including any potential liabilities arising from the claims against Sorin relating to the SNIA litigation, are assumed by LivaNova as successor to Sorin. Although LivaNova believes the claims against Sorin in connection with the SNIA litigation are without merit and continues to contest them vigorously, there can be no assurance as to the outcome. A finding during any appeal or novel proceedings that Sorin or LivaNova is liable for the environmental damage at the Caffaro Chemical Sites could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental Remediation Order. On July 28, 2015, Sorin and other direct and indirect shareholders of SNIA received an administrative order from the Italian Ministry of the Environment (the “Environmental Remediation Order”), directing them to promptly commence environmental remediation efforts at the Caffaro Chemical Sites (as described above). LivaNova believes that the Environmental Remediation Order is without merit. LivaNova (as successor to Sorin) believes that it should not be liable for damages relating to the Caffaro Chemical Operations pursuant to the Italian statute on which the Environmental Remediation Order relies because the statute does not apply to activities occurring prior to 2006, the date on which the statute was enacted, and Sorin was spun off from SNIA in 2004. Additionally, LivaNova believes that Sorin should not be subject to the Environmental Remediation Order because Italian environmental regulations only permit such an order to be imposed on an “operator” of a remediation site, and Sorin had never been identified in any legal proceeding as an operator at any of the Caffaro Chemical Sites, has not conducted activities of any kind at any of the Caffaro Chemical Sites and had not caused any environmental damage at any of the Caffaro Chemical Sites. Accordingly, LivaNova (as successor to Sorin) alongside other parties, challenged the Environmental Remediation Order before the Administrative Court of Lazio in Rome (the “TAR”). A hearing was held on February 3, 2016. On March 21, 2016 the TAR issued several judgments, annulling the Environmental Remediation Order, one for each of the addressees of the Environmental Remediation Order, including LivaNova. Those judgments were based on the fact that (i) the Environmental Remediation Order lacks any detailed analysis of the causal link between the alleged damage and the activities of the Company, which is a pre-condition to imposition of the measures proposed in the Environmental Remediation Order, (ii) the situation of the Caffaro site does not require urgent safety measures, because no new pollution events have occurred and no additional information/evidence of a situation of contamination exists and (iii) the Environmental Remediation Order was not enacted using the correct legal basis, and in any event the Ministry failed to verify the legal elements that could have led to a conclusion of legal responsibility of the addressees of the Environmental Remediation Order. The TAR decision described above may be appealed by the Ministry before the Council of State (within 60 days from the notification of the TAR’s judgment, or six months if the judgment has not been notified). Andrew Hagerty v. Cyberonics, Inc. On December 5, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam action filed by former employee Andrew Hagerty against Cyberonics under the False Claims Act (the “False Claims Act”) and the false claims statutes of 28 different states and the District of Columbia ( United States of America et al ex rel. Andrew Hagerty v. Cyberonics, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-10214-FDS). The False Claims Act prohibits the submission of a false claim or the making of a false record or statement to secure reimbursement from, or limit reimbursement to, a government-sponsored program. A “qui tam” action is a lawsuit brought by a private individual, known as a relator, purporting to act on behalf of the government. The action is filed under seal, and the government, after reviewing and investigating the allegations, may elect to participate, or intervene, in the lawsuit. Typically, following the government’s election, the qui tam action is unsealed. Previously, in August 2012, Mr. Hagerty filed a related lawsuit in the same court and then voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit immediately prior to filing this qui tam action. In addition to his claims for wrongful and retaliatory discharge stated in the first lawsuit, the qui tam lawsuit alleges that Cyberonics violated the False Claims Act and various state false claims statutes while marketing its VNS Therapy System, and seeks an unspecified amount consisting of treble damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. In October 2013, the United States Department of Justice declined to intervene in the qui tam action, but reserved the right to do so in the future. In December 2013, the district court unsealed the action. In April 2014, Cyberonics filed a motion to dismiss the qui tam complaint, alleging a number of deficiencies in the lawsuit. In May 2014, the relator filed a First Amended Complaint. Cyberonics filed another motion to dismiss in June 2014, and the parties completed their briefing on the motion in July 2014. On April 6, 2015, the district court dismissed all claims filed by Andrew Hagerty under the False Claims Act, but did not dismiss the claims for wrongful and retaliatory discharge. On July 28, 2015, Cyberonics filed its answer to the surviving claims in Mr. Hagerty’s first Amended Complaint and asserted its demand for arbitration pursuant to Mr. Hagerty’s employment documents. In August 2015, Mr. Hagerty filed a Motion Seeking Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint responding to certain deficiencies noted by the court when dismissing claims in his First Amended Complaint alleging that Cyberonics submitted, or caused the submission of false claims under the False Claims Act. On September 4, 2015, Cyberonics filed our Brief in Opposition to Hagerty’s Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Mr. Hagerty filed a Reply Brief in support of his Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on September 11, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Court heard oral arguments on (a) Mr. Hagerty’s motion seeking to amend his complaint, and (b) Cyberonics’ pending motion demanding arbitration on the claims relating to wrongful and retaliatory discharge. On November 17, 2015, the court (1) denied Mr. Hagerty’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (accordingly, the previously dismissed claims remain dismissed); (2) granted Cyberonics’ Motion to Compel Arbitration of the two remaining claims (for retaliatory discharge under the False Claims Act and for wrongful termination/retaliation under Massachusetts law); and (3) stayed the pending case (in order to consolidate all issues for appeal pending resolution of the arbitration). On or about February 22, 2016, Mr. Hagerty dismissed, without prejudice, his individual claims that were ordered to arbitration. Subsequently, on or about March 21, 2016, Mr. Hagerty filed an appeal of the previously dismissed FCA claims with the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is pending. We believe that our commercial practices were and are in compliance with applicable legal standards, and we will continue to defend this case vigorously. We make no assurance as to the resources that will be needed to respond to these matters or the final outcome, and we cannot estimate a range of potential loss or damages. Tax Litigation . In a tax audit report notified on October 30, 2009, the Regional Internal Revenue Office of Lombardy (the “Internal Revenue Office”) informed Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. that, among several issues, it was disallowing in part (for a total of €102.6 million ) a tax-deductible write down of the investment in the U.S. company, Cobe Cardiovascular Inc., which Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. recognized in 2002 and deducted in five equal installments, beginning in 2002. In December 2009, the Internal Revenue Office issued notices of assessment for 2002, 2003 and 2004. The assessments for 2002 and 2003 were automatically voided for lack of merit. In December 2010 and October 2011, the Internal Revenue Office issued notices of assessment for 2005 and 2006 respectively. The Company challenged all three notices of assessment (for 2004, 2005 and 2006) before the relevant Provincial Tax Courts. The preliminary challenges filed for 2004, 2005 and 2006 were heard and all denied at the first jurisdictional level, and subsequently, the Company filed an appeal against the decisions in the belief that all the decisions are incorrect in their reasoning and radically flawed. The appeal submitted against the first-level decision for 2005 was rejected. The second-level decision, relating to the 2005 notice of assessment, was appealed to the Italian Supreme Court ( Corte di Cassazione ) at a hearing on February 3, 2016, where we argued that the assessment should be deemed null and void and illegitimate because of a false application of regulations. The Court’s decision is pending. In November 2012, the Internal Revenue Office served a notice of assessment for 2007 and, in July 2013, served a notice of assessment for 2008, wherein the Internal Revenue Office claimed an increase in taxable income due to a reduction (similar to the previous notices of assessment for 2004, 2005 and 2006) of the losses reported by Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 tax periods and utilized in 2007 and 2008. Both notices of assessment were challenged within the statutory deadline. The Provincial Tax Court of Milan suspended the decision for 2007 until the litigation regarding years 2004, 2005 and 2006 are defined. The total amount of losses in dispute is €62.6 million or $71.3 million . At the time of Cyberonics-Sorin merger, LivaNova carefully reassessed its exposure, on this complex tax litigation, taking into account the recent general adverse trend to taxpayers on litigations with Italian tax authorities. Although the Company’s defensive arguments are strong, the negative Court trend experienced so far by Sorin ( four consecutive negative judgments received to date) as well as the fact of the ultimate outcome being dependent on the last possible Court level, i.e. the Italian Supreme Court, which is entitled to resolve only on procedural and legal aspects of the case but not on its substance, led LivaNova to recognize a risk provision of $19.2 million . Other Litigation . Additionally, we are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable and that may not be known for extended periods of time. Since the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the costs associated with them could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Lease Agreements We have operating leases for facilities and equipment. Rent expense from all operating leases amounted to approximately $5.9 million and $0.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and the thirteen weeks ended April 24, 2015 , respectively. |
