Commitments and Contingencies | Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies Operating Leases The Company leases two production facilities and one administrative and research facility under non-cancelable operating lease arrangements that expire through November 2025. Each of these leases contain renewal options and escalation clauses based upon increases in the lessors’ operating expenses and other charges. The Company also has a short-term lease for a small administrative-only facility. The Company records rent expense on a straight-line basis over the life of the lease and the difference between the average rent expense and cash payments for rent is recorded as deferred rent and is included in other current and long-term liabilities on the balance sheet. Rent expense was approximately $0.3 million for both the three months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, and was approximately $0.9 million for both the nine months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, and is included as a component of either cost of goods sold or general and administrative expenses. Cook Biotech License and Supply Agreements Aziyo has entered into a license agreement with Cook Biotech (“Cook”) for an exclusive, worldwide license to the porcine tissue for use in the Company’s Cardiac Patch and CanGaroo products, subject to certain co-exclusive rights retained by Cook (the “Cook License Agreement”). The term of such license is through the date of the last to expire of the licensed Cook patents, which is anticipated to be July 2031. Along with this license agreement, Aziyo entered into a supply agreement whereby Cook would be the exclusive supplier to Aziyo of the licensed porcine tissue. Under certain limited circumstances, Aziyo has the right to manufacture the licensed product and pay Cook a royalty of 3% of sales of the Aziyo-manufactured tissue. The supply agreement expires on the same date as the related license agreement. No royalties were paid to Cook during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022 or 2021. Aziyo has also entered into an amendment to the Cook License Agreement (the “Cook Amendment”) in order to add fields of exclusive use. Specifically, the Cook Amendment provides for a worldwide exclusive license to the porcine tissue for use with neuromodulation devices in addition to cardiovascular devices. The Cook Amendment includes license fee payments of $0.1 million per year in each of the years 2021 through 2026. Such license payments would accelerate if a change in control, as defined in the Cook Amendment, occurs within Aziyo. The Company, in its sole discretion, can terminate the Cook License Agreement at any time. Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may be involved in claims and proceedings arising in the course of the Company’s business. The outcome of any such claims or proceedings, regardless of the merits, is inherently uncertain. The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. FiberCel Litigation In June 2021, the Company announced a voluntary recall of a single lot of FiberCel fiber viable bone matrix. Since September 2021, 55 lawsuits in Indiana, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Oregon, North Carolina and Louisiana have been filed against Aziyo Biologics Inc., certain Medtronic entities, and others alleging that the plaintiffs were exposed to and/or contracted tuberculosis and/or suffered substantial symptoms and complications following the implantation of FiberCel during spinal fusion operations. Such lawsuits were filed in Indiana state court (collectively, the “Indiana State Complaints”); the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (collectively, the “Delaware State Complaints”); the Circuit Court of Maryland (collectively, the “Maryland State Complaints”); the Court of Common Pleas of Ohio (“Ohio State Complaint”); the Northern District of Ohio (“Ohio Federal Complaint”); the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (“North Carolina Federal Complaint”); the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (“Florida Federal Complaint”); U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Eastern District of Michigan (collectively “Michigan Federal Complaints.”); the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (“Colorado Federal Complaint”); the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (“Oregon Federal Complaint”); the Fayette, Kentucky Circuit Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (collectively, “Kentucky Complaints.”); the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (“Louisiana Federal Complaint”). Plaintiffs in the Indiana State Complaints allege a cause of action under Indiana’s Product Liability Act, citing manufacturing defects, defective design and failure to properly warn and instruct, and several of the complaints allege loss of consortium. Plaintiffs in these actions assert that the defendants are strictly liable or have breached the duty of care owed to plaintiffs by failing to exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, marketing and labeling FiberCel and are seeking various types of damages, including economic damages, non-economic damages and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs in one of the Indiana State Complaints allege causes of action for product liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and punitive damages. Each of the plaintiffs in the Delaware State Complaints alleges negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and medical monitoring and punitive damages, and two also allege loss of consortium. Plaintiffs in the Delaware State Complaints are seeking economic, consequential, and punitive damages. The Maryland State Complaints assert claims of negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, medical monitoring, and loss of consortium. The Florida Federal Complaint contains three strict liability claims for defective design, defective manufacture, and failure to warn. A claim for punitive damages is also pled. The Ohio State Complaint alleges causes of action for product liability and negligence and seeks compensatory damages. The Colorado Federal Complaint asserts causes of action for strict product liability, misrepresentation, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The Michigan Federal Complaints assert causes of action for negligence, gross negligence breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and liability under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. The Michigan Federal Complaints seek compensatory damages and punitive damages. The North Carolina Federal Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, defective design, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and loss of consortium, and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. The Oregon Federal Complaint asserts strict liability claims for defective design, defective manufacture, and failure to warn, and seeks compensatory damages. The Ohio Federal Complaint asserts strict liability claims for defective manufacturing, inadequate warning, nonconformance with representations, and also alleges loss of consortium and seeks compensatory damages. The Kentucky Complaints assert strict liability claims based on manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and seek recovery for medical monitoring, loss of consortium, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. The Louisiana Federal Complaint asserts claims of violation of the Louisiana products liability act, negligence and gross negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty and seek recovery for medical monitoring. In addition to the above, there have been 42 claims related to the FiberCel recall that have not yet resulted in a lawsuit. The Company refers to all of the aforementioned litigation, or claim notices, collectively as the “FiberCel Litigation.” In October 2022, the Company engaged in a process to negotiate and attempt to resolve many of the cases in the FiberCel Litigation. The Company also mediated and resolved a Maryland lawsuit in August 2022. In total, Aziyo’s liability in 24 of the cases was settled (23 of which are pending finalization of the related settlement agreements) for a total of approximately $7.2 million. The settled matters included cases from the Indiana State Complaints, Ohio State Complaint, Florida Federal Complaint, Colorado Federal Complaint, Delaware State Complaints and Maryland Complaint, along with claims in six states. Of these settled matters, one case was both settled and paid as of September 30, 2022 for a total cash outlay of $1.3 million. For the remaining 73 cases, the Company estimated a probable loss related to each case and has recorded a liability at an estimated amount of $11.7 million bringing the total estimated liability at September 30, 2022 to $17.6 million, which is recorded as Contingent Liability for FiberCel Litigation in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. Although we believe there is a possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. In order to reasonably estimate the liability for the unsettled FiberCel Litigation cases, the Company, along with outside legal counsel, has assessed a variety of factors, including (i) the extent of the injuries incurred, (ii) recent experience on the settled claims, (iii) settlement offers made to the other parties to the litigation and (iv) any other factors that may have a material effect on the FiberCel Litigation. While the Company believes its estimated liability to be reasonable, the actual loss amounts are highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the relevant facts. As more information is learned about asserted claims and potential future trends, adjustments may be made to this Contingent Liability for FiberCel Litigation as appropriate. Defense costs are recognized in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations as incurred. The Company has purchased insurance coverage that, subject to common contract exclusions, provided coverage for the FiberCel Litigation product liability losses as well as legal defense costs. Additionally, the Company has various potential indemnity and/or contribution rights against third party sources with respect to certain product liability losses. When settlements are reached and/or amounts are recorded in the related Contingent Liability for FiberCel Litigation, the Company calculates amounts due to be reimbursed pursuant to the terms of the coverage and related agreements, and pursuant to other indemnity or contribution claims, in respect of product liability losses and related defense costs. The amounts probable of reimbursement or recovery from this calculation are recorded as receivables. The determination that the recorded receivables are probable of collection is based on the terms of agreements reached in respect of indemnity and contribution claims as well as the advice of the Company’s outside legal counsel. These receivables at September 30, 2022 totaled $17.2 million and are recorded as Receivables of FiberCel Litigation Costs in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. The indemnity and contribution receivables amount at September 30, 2022 represents amounts that are not believed to be subject to any current dispute. At September 30, 2022, the Company continues to pursue up to $3.8 million or more in additional amounts in respect of such indemnity and contribution claims and as such, has not been reflected as part of this receivable. The Company will vigorously pursue its position with respect to this amount and while uncertain, does expect to be successful in recovering at least an additional $3.8 million or more. As of both September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company was not a party to, or aware of, any material legal matters or claims except for the FiberCel Litigation. |