Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Cartessa On December 14, 2020, Hydrafacial filed a complaint (the “Cartessa Complaint”) against Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC (“Cartessa”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the “New York Court”), captioned Edge Systems LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-6082, for patent infringement arising from Cartessa’s sale of Cartessa’s hydrodermabrasion system that Hydrafacial alleged has infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. Hydrafacial narrowed its allegation in the Cartessa Complaint to assert infringement of just four of its patents. On September 15, 2022, the New York Court granted Hydrafacial’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Unclean Hands and denied Cartessa’s Motion for Summary Judgment of non-infringement on three of the four patents-in-suit. On June 6, 2023, the New York Court granted Hydrafacial’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Invalidity of the fourth patent-in-suit and granted Cartessa’s Motion for Summary Judgment of non-infringement of that same patent. As of the date of this report, Hydrafacial and Cartessa are awaiting the New York Court to set a trial date on Hydrafacial’s remaining three patents-in-suit in the Cartessa Complaint. Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Cartessa. Hydrafacial also plans to appeal the New York Court’s grant of Cartessa’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Cartessa - Eunsung Global Corp. On June 11, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Cartessa and its foreign manufacturer, Eunsung Global Corp., in the United States International Trade Commission. A Notice of Institution of Investigation was issued on July 11, 2024, and the investigation was assigned investigation number 337-TA-1408. In the investigation, Hydrafacial has asserted a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287, which relates to hydrodermabrasion systems but was not asserted in the Cartessa Complaint. The investigation is in the early stages, and Hydrafacial is seeking an exclusion order preventing importation or sale of Cartessa’s hydrodermabrasion systems within the U.S. Medicreations On May 6, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Medicreations LLC (“Medicreations”) in the United States District Court for Nevada, Case Number 2:24-cv-00855 (the “Medicreations Complaint”), for patent infringement arising from Medicreations’ sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed twelve of Hydrafacial’s patents. The Medicreations Complaint is in its early stages, and Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Medicreations. Aesthetic Management Partners On July 8, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Aesthetic Management Partners Inc. (“Aesthetic Management Partners”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Case No. 2:24-cv-02480-JPM-TMP (the “AMP Complaint”), for patent infringement arising from Aesthetic Management Partners’ sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. The AMP Complaint is in its early stages, and Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Aesthetic Management Partners. Medical Purchasing Resource On June 4, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Medical Purchasing Resource, LLC (“Medical Purchasing Resource”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-4655 (the “MPR Complaint”), for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, tortious interference, and other causes of action relating to Hydrafacial’s trademark rights. The MPR Complaint is in its early stages, and Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Medical Purchasing Resource. Securities Class Action On November 16, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its then-current president and chief executive officer, Andrew Stanleick, its former chief financial officer, Liyuan Woo, and its current chief financial officer, Michael Monahan. The complaint, styled Abduladhim A. Alghazwi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Beauty Health Company, Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, and Michael Monahan, Case No. 2:23-cv-09733 (C.D. Ca.) (the “Securities Class Action”), asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants (First Claim), and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants (Second Claim). The complaint alleges that, between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023, defendants materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions relating to Hydrafacial's business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for compensatory damages suffered by the plaintiff and other members of the putative class for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged securities violations. On January 16, 2024, putative class members Jeff and Kevin Brown (the “Browns”), Priscilla and Martjn Dijkgraaf (the “Dijkgraafs”), and Joseph Jou filed three competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 17 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3). On January 31, 2024, Joseph Jou filed a notice of non-opposition to the Browns’ and Dijkgraafs’ motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 2, 2024, the court granted the Dijkgraafs’ motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved the Dijkgraafs’ counsel, Hagens Berman, as lead counsel. On May 9, 2024, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to the court setting forth a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and defendants’ response thereto. The proposed schedule has not yet been approved by the court. On July 1, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting the same causes of action as the original complaint. The Securities Class Action case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Securities Class Action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend them. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability associated with the Securities Class Action. Consolidated Derivative Action On February 8, 2024, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company’s former president and chief executive officer, Andrew Stanleick; its former chief financial officer, Liyuan Woo, and current members of the Company’s board of directors (the “Board of Directors”): Brenton Saunders, Marla Beck, Michael Capellas, Julius Few, Desiree Gruber, Michelle Kerrick, Brian Miller, and Doug Schillinger, with the Company as the nominal defendant. The complaint, styled Margie Elstein, derivatively on behalf of The Beauty Health Company v. Brenton Saunders, Marla Beck, Michael Capellas, Julius Few, Desiree Gruber, Michelle C. Kerrick, Brian Miller, Doug Schillinger Andrew Stanleick, and Liyuan Woo, C.A. No. 2024-0114-LWW (Del. Ch.) (the “Elstein Derivative Action”), asserts a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants based on the alleged disclosure of knowingly false information and/or the alleged failure to respond to red flags relating to Hydrafacial’s business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The plaintiff-stockholder further maintains that no demand was made upon the Company’s Board of Directors prior to the initiation of the Elstein Derivative Action based on allegations that a majority of the Board of Directors was not disinterested or independent with respect to the fiduciary duty claim, such that demand should be excused as futile. The relief sought in the complaint includes a finding of demand futility, a finding that the individual defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties (as current/former officers and directors), and an award of compensatory damages for harm suffered by the Company and its stockholders for harm allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged fiduciary duty violation. On May 1, 2024, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company’s former president and chief executive officer, Andrew Stanleick; its former chief financial officer, Liyuan Woo, and current members of the Company’s Board of Directors: Brent Saunders, Marla Beck, Michael Capellas, Julius Few, Desiree Gruber, Michelle Kerrick, Brian Miller, and Doug Schillinger, with the Company as the nominal defendant. The complaint, styled Richard Montague, derivatively on behalf of The Beauty Health Company v. Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, Brent Saunders, Marla Beck, Michael Capellas, Julius Few, Desiree Gruber, Michelle C. Kerrick, Brian Miller, and Doug Schillinger, C.A. No. 2024-0463-LWW (Del. Ch) (the “Montague Derivative Action”), asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) gross mismanagement, (iii) waste of corporate assets, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) aiding and abetting against the individual defendants based on allegations that the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, specifically relating to the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the Montague Derivative Action includes (a) awarding damages for harm suffered by the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, (b) awarding damages for harm suffered by the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the Company’s directors’ alleged aiding and abetting of breaching their fiduciary duties, (c) directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, to comply with its existing governance obligations and all applicable laws, and to protect its investors from a recurrence of the alleged damaging events, and (d) awarding the plaintiff-stockholder the costs and disbursements of the Montague Derivative Action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses. On May 22, 2024, the parties to the Elstein Derivative Action and Montague Derivative Action submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order Governing Consolidation, Appointment of Lead, and Deadline to Respond to Operative Complaint. On May 24, 2024, Vice Chancellor Will, who was assigned to both the Elstein Derivative Action and the Montague Derivative Action, entered the Stipulation and Order Governing Consolidation, Appointment of Lead, and Deadline to Respond to Operative Complaint (the “Consolidation Order”). Per the Consolidation Order, the Elstein Derivative Action and the Montague Derivative Action were consolidated into a single derivative action, styled In re The Beauty Health Company Consolidated Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2024-0114-LWW (Del. Ch.) (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). The Consolidation Order designated the law firms of Gainey McKenna & Egleston and Komlossy Law, P.A. as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action, and designated the law firm of Cooch and Taylor, P.A. as Delaware counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action. Additionally, the Consolidation Order designated the complaint filed in the Elstein Derivative Action as the operative complaint for the Consolidated Derivative Action (the “Operative Complaint”), further providing that defendants are not obligated to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint filed in the Montague Derivative Action. The Consolidation Order further provided that defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Operative Complaint by August 25, 2024. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend them. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability associated with the Consolidated Derivative Action. Securities and Exchange Commission ( the “ SEC”) Subpoena The Division of Enforcement of the SEC has issued a subpoena in connection with a formal order of investigation of the Company seeking documents and information from us. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoena and intends to fully cooperate with the SEC investigation. We cannot predict the duration, scope, or outcome of this matter at this time. |