Contingencies | 1 1 The Company is party to outstanding legal proceedings, investigations and claims, as previously described in (i) Part I, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings,” of the 2015 Form 10-K and (ii) note 14 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements filed with the 2015 Form 10-K. The Company believes that it is unlikely that the outcome of any of the matters that remain pending will have a material adverse effect on it and its subsidiaries as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on the Company’s net earnings (if any) in any particular quarter. However, the Company cannot predict with any certainty the final outcome of any of these legal proceedings, investigations (including any settlement discussions with the government seeking to resolve such investigations) or claims, and there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of any such matters will not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition to the matters described in the paragraphs below and in the 2015 Form 10-K, in the normal course of its business, the Company is involved in various lawsuits from time to time and may be subject to certain other contingencies. To the extent losses related to these contingencies are both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company accrues appropriate amounts in the accompanying financial statements and provides disclosures as to the possible range of loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such range is reasonably estimable. The Company believes losses with respect to these additional matters are individually and collectively immaterial as to a possible loss and range of loss. Commercial Litigation Settlement During the third quarter of 2016, the Company entered into an agreement to settle an outstanding commercial litigation matter, whereby the Company will receive a $3.0 million cash payment. Matters Related to the Audit Committee’s Review and the Restatement of Certain of our Consolidated Financial Statements Audit Committee Review In July 2013, the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors began conducting an independent review, with the assistance of outside professionals, of certain accounting matters. This review resulted in a restatement of our previously filed consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013, as well as the restatement of certain financial information for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. In connection with the Company’s preparation of its consolidated interim quarterly financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014, the Company determined that certain entries with respect to the previously filed financial statements contained in the filings containing the restatement were not properly accounted for under U.S. GAAP. As a result, the Company determined in August 2014 to restate its previously filed consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 and quarterly reporting periods contained within the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, as well as the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2014. SEC Investigation In connection with the initiation of the Audit Committee’s independent review, the Company initiated contact with the staff of the Division of Enforcement of the SEC (the “SEC Enforcement Staff”) in July 2013 to advise them of these matters. The SEC conducted a formal investigation of these matters, and both the Company and the Audit Committee cooperated fully with the SEC. The Company is currently engaged in discussions with the SEC Enforcement Staff regarding a possible negotiated resolution of these matters as to the Company. Although such discussions remain ongoing, and any agreement reached between the SEC Enforcement Staff and the Company will be subject to approval by the full Commission, the Company has reached an agreement in principle with the SEC Enforcement Staff that any negotiated resolution will include a civil money penalty of approximately $8.3 million, and the Company previously recorded a charge in this amount during the second quarter of 2016 for this matter. However, no assurance can be given that we will be able to achieve a final, definitive resolution with the SEC to resolve this matter on these or other terms, and the failure to resolve this matter on these or other terms could adversely affect our business and operations. Deferred Prosecution Agreement and Review of Potentially Improper Payments Involving Brazil Subsidiary In 2012, the Company entered into definitive agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the SEC agreeing to settle a self-initiated and self-reported internal investigation of our former Mexican subsidiary, Promeca S.A. de C.V. (“Promeca”), regarding non-compliance by Promeca with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). As part of the settlement, the Company entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ and a consent to final judgment (the “Consent”) with the SEC. Under the DPA, the DOJ agreed not to pursue any criminal charges against the Company in connection with the Promeca matter if the Company complied with the terms of the DPA. The DPA took note of the Company’s self-reporting of this matter to the DOJ and the SEC, and of remedial measures, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program, previously undertaken by the Company. The DPA and the Consent collectively required, among other things that with respect to anti-bribery compliance matters the Company would continue to cooperate fully with the government in any future matters related to corrupt payments, false books and records or inadequate internal controls. In that regard, the Company represented that it had implemented and would continue to implement a compliance and ethics program designed to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws, which includes maintaining a system of internal controls. The Company periodically reported to the government during the terms of the DPA and Consent regarding such remediation and implementation of compliance measures. In August 2013, during the terms of the DPA and Consent, the Company’s internal legal department was notified of certain allegations involving potentially improper payments with respect to its Brazilian subsidiary, Orthofix do Brasil Ltda., and promptly contacted both the DOJ and the SEC Enforcement Staff to voluntarily self-report the allegations. Following the self-report, the Company cooperated fully with the DOJ’s investigation of those allegations. On June 15, 2015, the Company and the DOJ agreed to extend the term of the DPA for two months (through September 17, 2015) to permit the DOJ additional time to evaluate the Company’s compliance with the internal controls and compliance undertakings in the DPA and to further investigate the Brazil-related allegations. On September 17, 2015, the DOJ extended the term of the DPA for an additional ten months (through July 17, 2016), stating that the Company’s efforts to comply with the internal controls and compliance requirements of the DPA during the first eighteen months of the DPA were insufficient. On July 17, 2016, the DPA expired; on July 29, 2016, the DOJ filed with the court a dismissal of the underlying Promeca-related case; and, on August 1, 2016, the court entered an order granting the DOJ’s motion to dismiss such case without prejudice. The Company also fully cooperated with the SEC’s investigation of the allegations in Brazil. The Company has been engaged in discussions with the SEC Enforcement Staff regarding a resolution of the Brazil-related allegations as they relate to the SEC's jurisdiction. Although such discussions remain ongoing, and any agreement reached between the SEC Enforcement Staff and the Company will be subject to approval by the full Commission, the Company has reached an agreement in principle with the SEC Enforcement Staff. The Company recorded a charge of $4.6 million in the second quarter of 2016, and a further charge of approximately $1.5 million in the third quarter of 2016, for this matter. However, no assurance can be given that we will be able to achieve a final, definitive resolution with the SEC on these or other terms, and the failure to resolve this matter on these or other terms could adversely affect our business and operations. Matters Related to the Company’s Former Breg Subsidiary and Possible Indemnification Obligations On May 24, 2012, the Company sold Breg to an affiliate of Water Street Healthcare Partners II, L.P. (“Water Street”) pursuant to a stock purchase agreement (the “Breg SPA”). Under the terms of the Breg SPA, upon closing of the sale, the Company and its subsidiary, Orthofix Holdings, Inc., agreed to indemnify Water Street and Breg with respect to certain specified matters, including the following: • Breg was engaged in the manufacturing and sale of local infusion pumps for pain management from 1999 to 2008. Since 2008, numerous product liability cases have been filed in the United States alleging that the local anesthetic, when dispensed by such infusion pumps inside a joint, causes a rare arthritic condition called “chondrolysis.” The Company incurred losses for settlements and judgments in connection with these matters during the first nine months of 2016 of $0.8 million as compared to $0.3 million in the first nine months of 2015. In addition, several cases remain outstanding for which the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss. • At the time of its divestiture by the Company, Breg was engaged in the manufacturing and sales of motorized cold therapy units used to reduce pain and swelling. Several domestic product liability cases have been filed in recent years, mostly in California state court, alleging the use of cold therapy causes skin and/or nerve injury and seeking damages on behalf of individual plaintiffs who were allegedly injured by such units or who would not have purchased the units had they known they could be injured. In September 2014, the Company entered into a master settlement agreement resolving all pending pre-close claims. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company paid approximately $1.3 million, and additional amounts owed under the settlement were paid directly by the Company’s insurance providers. These amounts paid by the Company were recorded as an expense in discontinued operations during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014. Remaining cold therapy claims include a putative consumer class of individuals who did not suffer physical harm following use of the devices, and an appeal of an adverse July 2012 California jury verdict and a post-close cold therapy claim pending in California state court. As of September 30, 2016, the Company has accrued $5.7 million for the July 2012 verdict and post-close cold therapy liabilities; however, actual liability could be higher or lower than the amount accrued. The putative class action is at an early stage and the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss. On October 28, 2016, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in Engler v. Breg, Inc. et al. , reversing in part and affirming in part the judgment entered against Breg in 2012. The Company is evaluating the ruling. Charges incurred as a result of this indemnification are reflected as discontinued operations in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. |