| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies 3T Heater Cooler 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 stated 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. CDC and FDA Safety Communications and Company Field Safety Notice Update On October 13, 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and FDA separately released safety notifications regarding the 3T Heater Cooler devices. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (“MMWR”) and Health Advisory Notice (“HAN”) reported that tests conducted by CDC and its affiliates indicate that there appears to be genetic similarity between both patient and heater cooler strains of the non-tuberculous mycobacterium (“NTM”) bacteria M. chimaera isolated in hospitals in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Citing the geographic separation between the two hospitals referenced in the investigation, the report asserts that 3T Heater Cooler devices manufactured prior to August 18, 2014 could have been contaminated during the manufacturing process. The CDC’s HAN and FDA’s Safety Communication, issued contemporaneously with the MMWR report, each assess certain risks associated with heater cooler devices and provide guidance for providers and patients. The CDC notification states that the decision to use the 3T Heater Cooler during a surgical operation is to be taken by the surgeon based on a risk approach and on patient need. Both the CDC’s and FDA’s communications confirm that heater cooler devices are critical medical devices and enable doctors to perform life-saving cardiac surgery procedures. Also on October 13, 2016, the Company issued a Field Safety Notice Update for U.S. users of 3T Heater Cooler devices to proactively and voluntarily contact facilities to facilitate implementation of the CDC and FDA recommendations. In the fourth quarter of 2016 the Company initiated a program to provide existing 3T users with a new loaner 3T device at no charge pending regulatory approval and implementation of additional risk mitigation strategies worldwide. This loaner program began in the U.S. and is being progressively made available on a global basis, prioritizing and allocating devices to 3T users based on pre-established criteria. We anticipate that this program will continue until we are able to address customer needs through a broader solution that includes implementation of one or more of the risk mitigation strategies currently under review with regulatory agencies. At December 31, 2016 , the Company recognized a liability for a product remediation plan related to its 3T Heater Cooler device. We concluded that it was probable that a liability had been incurred upon management’s approval of the plan and the commitments made by management to various regulatory authorities globally in November and December 2016, and furthermore, the cost associated with the plan was reasonably estimable. Refer to “Note 11. Product Remediation Liability” for additional information. 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. On September 29, 2016 the Court dismissed LivaNova PLC from the case, and on October 11, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH and Sorin Group USA, Inc. from the lawsuit. In addition to the Baker case addressed in the preceding section, the Company has received additional lawsuits from around the U.S. related to surgical cases in which a 3T Heater Cooler device was allegedly used. Twenty-seven lawsuits have been filed against the Company in state and Federal courts in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, North Carolina, Iowa, South Dakota, California, Texas and Alabama and one case has been filed in Montreal, Canada. Two of the cases noted above are brought by plaintiffs seeking class action status: the case filed against the Company in Canada, which relates to surgical cases at the Montreal Heart Institute, and a single case relating to surgical cases performed at two hospitals in South Carolina. The Company has not yet been served with either of these complaints. 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 each of these claims. Given the early stage of each of these matters, 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 these complaints or other related litigation in connection therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Other Matters 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 up to the actual value of the shareholders’ equity conveyed or received (we estimate that the value of the shareholders’ equity received was approximately €573 million , or $601.7 million ), for certain indebtedness or liabilities of the pre-spin-off company: • 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); • for “liabilities” ( elementi del passivo ) whose allocation between the parties to the spin-off cannot be determined based on the spin-off plan. Sorin believes and has argued before the relevant fora that Sorin is not jointly liable with SNIA for its alleged SNIA debts and liabilities. Specifically, 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 , or $3.6 billion , for remediation costs relating to the environmental damage at the Caffaro Chemical Sites allegedly caused by the Caffaro Chemical Operations. The amount 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 the Environment. In addition to disputing liability, the Company also disputes the amount being claimed and the basis for its estimation by Italian authorities, and that issue also remains in dispute. No final remediation plan has been approved at any time by the Italian authorities. In September 2011, the Bankruptcy Court of Udine, and in July 2014, the Bankruptcy Court of Milan each held (in proceedings to which our Company is not part) that the Italian Ministry of the Environment and other Italian government agencies (the “Public Administrations”) were not creditors of either SNIA Subsidiaries or SNIA in connection with their claims in the context of their Italian insolvency proceedings. LivaNova (as the successor to Sorin in the litigation) believes these findings are and will be influential (although not formally binding) upon other Italian courts, including civil courts. Public Administrations have appealed both decisions in those insolvency proceedings: in January 2016 the Court of Udine rejected the appeal brought by the Italian Public Administrations. The Public Administrations have appealed that second loss in pending proceedings before the Italian Supreme Court. The appeal by the Public Administrations before the Court of Milan remains pending. In January 2012, SNIA filed a civil action against Sorin in the Civil Court of Milan asserting provisions of the Italian Civil Code relating to potential joint liability of a parent and a spun-off company in the context of a spin-off, as described above. Those proceedings seek 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 Public Administrations Italian Ministry of the Environment and other Italian government agencies, as defendants, in order to have them bound to the final ruling. The Public Administrations that had also sought compensation from SNIA for alleged environmental damage subsequently counterclaimed against Sorin, seeking to have Sorin declared jointly liable towards those Public Administrations alongside SNIA, and on the same legal basis. SNIA and the Public Administrations also requested the court to declare inapplicable to the Sorin spin-off the cap on potential joint liability of parties to a spin-off otherwise provided for by the Italian Civil Code. The cap, if applied, would limit any joint liability to the actual value of the shareholders’ equity received. The Public Administrations have argued before the court that the Sorin spin-off was planned prior to the date such caps were enacted under the Italian Civil Code (although executed after such caps were introduced into Italian law) and should therefore not be applied to the Sorin spin-off. Sorin has vigorously contested all of SNIA’s claims against Sorin as well as those claims brought by the Public Administrations. 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 all legal actions of SNIA and of the Public Administrations against Sorin (now LivaNova), further requiring the Public Administrations to pay Sorin €300 thousand , or $315 thousand , as legal fees (of which €50,000 jointly with SNIA). On June 21, 2016, the Public Administrations filed an appeal against the above decision before the Court of Appeal of Milan. The first hearing of the appeal proceedings was held on December 20, 2016 and the Court scheduled the final hearing for May 16, 2017. After such hearing the parties will file their final briefs and the Court is expected to render its decision in November 2017. SNIA appeared before the Court but did not file an appeal. 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 reasoning contained in, and legal conclusions reached in, the 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, allocation and apportionment of any such responsibility, which party is responsible for which time period, all remain issues 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 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 relating to the environmental damage at the Caffaro Chemical Sites or its alleged cause(s) 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, inter alia, the statute does not apply to activities occurring prior to 2006, the date on which the statute was enacted (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 has never operated any activity of whatsoever nature at any of the industrial sites concerned and, further, has never been identified in any legal proceeding as an operator at any of these Caffaro Chemical Sites, and could not and in fact did not cause 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. LivaNova has welcomed the decisions. The TAR decisions described above have nonetheless been appealed by the Ministry before the Council of State. No information on the timing of the first hearing of this appeal is presently available. Andrew Hagerty v. Cyberonics, Inc. On December 5, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“District Court”) 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 District 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 District 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 District 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 (“FCA”) 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 (“Appeals Court”). Both Mr. Hagerty and the Company filed written briefs with the Appeals Court and on November 8, 2016, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments before the Court. On or about December 16, 2016, the Court issued its opinion in the matter, upholding the district court’s dismissal of the FCA claims. Mr. Hagerty did not seek panel rehearing or en banc reconsideration of that opinion on or before January 9, 2017 and the First Circuit issued a mandate sending the case back to the district court for final disposition. Mr. Hagerty may still file a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court before March 16, 2017. 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 , or $107.7 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. In July 2016, the appeal submitted against the first-level decision for 2004 was accepted (in November 2016, the appeal filed by Bios SpA was also accepted). The second level decision related to the 2004 notice of assessment was appealed to the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) by the Internal Revenue Office in February 2017 and the Supreme Court’s decision is pending. The appeal submitted against the first-level decision for the 2005 notice of assessment was rejected. The second-level decision for 2005 was appealed to the Italian Supreme Court where we argued that the assessment should be deemed null and void and illegitimate because of inappropriate interpretation and application of tax regulations; the Supreme Court’s decision is pending. In October 2016, the appeal we submitted against the first-level negative decision for 2006 assessment was rejected and we will file an appeal of this decision to the Italian Supreme Court. 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. We expect a decision from the Provincial Court of Milan with regard to our challenge to the 2008 assessment in March 2017. The total amount of losses in dispute is €62.6 million or $65.7 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 and one positive judgment 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 leave unchanged the previously recognized risk provision of €16.9 million for $17.7 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 net income, financial position or cash flows. Lease Agreements We have operating leases for facilities and equipment. Rent expense from all operating leases amounted to approximately $26.1 million , $5.2 million , $0.8 million and $0.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 , for the transitional period from April 25, 2015 to December 31, 2015 and for the fiscal years ended April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2014 , respectively. Future minimum lease payments for operating leases as of December 31, 2016 (in thousands): 2017 $ 18,839 2018 18,902 2019 13,329 2020 12,938 2021 9,742 Thereafter 22,891 |
