XML 26 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies 3T Heater-Cooler Devices FDA Warning Letter. On December 29, 2015, the FDA issued LivaNova a Warning Letter (the “Warning Letter”) alleging certain violations of FDA regulations applicable to medical device manufacturers at our 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 devices and other devices we manufactured at our Munich facility are subject to refusal of admission into the U.S. 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 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 device, and manufacturing and shipment of all of our products other than the 3T device 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 devices to existing U.S. users pursuant to a certificate of medical necessity program. Finally, 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, this restriction applies only to the Munich and Arvada facilities, which do not manufacture or design devices subject to Class III premarket approval. We continue 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 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 3T device 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 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 3T devices and provide guidance for providers and patients. The CDC notification states that the decision to use the 3T device 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 3T devices are critical medical devices and enable doctors to perform life-saving cardiac surgery procedures. Also on October 13, 2016, we issued a Field Safety Notice Update for U.S. users of 3T devices to proactively and voluntarily contact facilities to aid in implementation of the CDC and FDA recommendations. In the fourth quarter of 2016, we initiated a program to provide existing 3T device 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 made available progressively on a global basis, prioritizing and allocating devices to 3T device 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. On December 31, 2016, we recognized a liability for our product remediation plan related to our 3T 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. At September 30, 2017, the product remediation liability was $30.2 million. Refer to “Note 4. Product Remediation Liability” for additional information. Litigation 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 our 3T devices. The plaintiffs named in the complaint 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 nontuberculous mycobacterium (“NTM”), from our 3T devices; and (ii) we knew or should have known that design or manufacturing defects in 3T devices can lead to NTM bacterial colonization, regardless of the cleaning and disinfection procedures used (and recommended by us). The class of plaintiffs in the complaint consists 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 currently are asymptomatic for NTM infection. On October 23, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an order certifying a class with respect to the named plaintiffs. The class action, which is currently against Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH and Sorin Group USA, Inc. seeks: (i) declaratory relief finding the 3T devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses; (ii) medical monitoring; (iii) general damages; and (iv) attorneys’ fees. Other lawsuits related to surgeries in which a 3T device allegedly was used have been filed elsewhere in the U.S., as well as in Canada, and Europe, against various LivaNova entities. We are defending each of these claims vigorously. Given the relatively early stage of these matters, we cannot give any assurances that additional legal proceedings making the same or similar allegations will not be filed against us or one of our subsidiaries, nor that the resolution of these complaints or other related litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. We have not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from these matters. Other Litigation SNIA Litigation Sorin was created as a result of a spin-off (the “Sorin spin-off”) from SNIA S.p.A. (“SNIA”). The Sorin spin-off, which involved 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, for certain indebtedness or liabilities of the pre-spin-off company. We estimate that the value of the shareholders’ equity received by Sorin was approximately €573 million (approximately $676 million). We believe and have 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. 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 (approximately $4.0 billion) for remediation costs relating to the environmental damage at the Caffaro Chemical Sites. In September 2011, the Bankruptcy Court of Udine, and in July 2014, the Bankruptcy Court of Milan each held (in proceedings to which we are not parties) 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. 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 joint liability of a parent and a spun-off company. SNIA’s civil action against Sorin also named the Public Administrations, the Italian Ministry of the Environment and other Italian government agencies, as defendants, in order to have them bound to the final ruling. On April 1, 2016, the Court of Milan dismissed all legal actions of SNIA and of the Public Administrations against Sorin, further requiring the Public Administrations to pay Sorin €300,000 (or approximately $353,910), as legal fees (of which SNIA is jointly liable for €50,000) (the “2016 Decision”). On June 21, 2016, the Public Administrations appealed the 2016 Decision to the Court of Appeal of Milan. The first hearing of the appeal proceedings was held in December 2016, and the final hearing is now scheduled for November 22, 2017. After the hearing, the parties will file their final briefs, and the Court is expected to render its decision in mid-2018. SNIA did not file an appeal. We (as successor to Sorin in the litigation) continue 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 alleged damages, related remediation costs, allocation and apportionment of any such responsibility, which party is responsible, and various time periods involving different parties, all remain issues in dispute and that no final decision on a remediation plan has been approved. As a result, we have not made any accrual in connection with the SNIA litigation. Pursuant to European Union (“EU”), United Kingdom (“UK”) 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 us as successor to Sorin. Although we believe the claims against Sorin in connection with the SNIA litigation are without merit and continue to contest them vigorously, there can be no assurance as to the outcome. A finding during any appeal or novel proceedings that we are liable for environmental damage at the Caffaro Chemical Sites or its alleged cause(s) could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Environmental Remediation Order On July 28, 2015, Sorin and other direct and indirect shareholders of SNIA received an administrative order (the “Remediation Order”) from the Italian Ministry of the Environment (the “Ministry”), directing them to promptly commence environmental remediation efforts at the Caffaro Chemical Sites (as described above). We (as successor to Sorin) believe that we should not be liable for damages relating to the Caffaro Chemical Operations pursuant to the Italian statute on which the 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, we believe that Sorin should not be subject to the Remediation Order because Italian environmental regulations only permit such an order to be imposed on an “operator” of a remediation site, and Sorin never operated any activity at any of the industrial sites concerned and, further, was never identified in any legal proceeding as an operator at any of the Caffaro Chemical Sites and could not and in fact did not cause any environmental damage at any of the Caffaro Chemical Sites. Accordingly, we (as successor to Sorin) alongside other parties, challenged the Remediation Order before the Administrative Court of Lazio in Rome (the “TAR”). On March 21, 2016 the TAR annulled the Remediation Order based on the fact that (i) the Remediation Order lacks any detailed analysis of the causal link between the alleged damage and our activities, a pre-condition to imposition of the measures proposed in the 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 or evidence of a situation of contamination exists, and (iii) there was no proper legal basis for the Remediation Order, and in any event, the Ministry failed to verify the legal elements that could have led to a conclusion of legal responsibility of the recipients of the Remediation Order. The TAR decisions described above have 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. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Opposition to Merger Proceedings On July 28, 2015, the Public Administrations filed an opposition proceeding to the proposed merger between Sorin and Cyberonics (the “Merger”), before the Commercial Courts of Milan, asking the Court to prohibit the execution of the Merger. In its initial decision on August 20, 2015, the Court authorized the Merger and the Public Administrations did not appeal this decision. The proceeding then continued as a civil case, with the Public Administration seeking damages against us. The Commercial Court of Milan delivered a decision in October 2016, fully rejecting the Public Administration’s request and awarding us €200,000 (approximately $228,000) in damages for frivolous litigation, plus €200,000 (approximately $228,000) in legal fees. The Public Administrations has appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of Milan. The final hearing is scheduled on January 17, 2018. The Court of Appeal is likely to make a decision in mid-June 2018. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Tax Litigation In a tax audit report received in October 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 (approximately $121.0 million), related to tax years 2002 through 2006) 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. We 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 denied at the first jurisdictional level. We appealed these decisions. The appeal submitted against the first-level decision for 2004 was successful. The Internal Revenue Office appealed this second-level decision to the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) in February 2017. The Italian Supreme Court’s decision is pending. The appeals submitted against the first-level decisions for 2005 and 2006 were rejected. We appealed these adverse decisions to the Italian Supreme Court, where the matters are still 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. In these matters the Internal Revenue Office claims 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 subsequently utilized in 2007 and 2008. We challenged both notices of assessment. The Provincial Tax Court of Milan has stayed its decision for years 2007 and 2008 pending resolution of the litigation regarding years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The total amount of losses in dispute is €62.6 million (approximately $73.8 million). We have continuously reassessed our potential exposure in these matters, taking into account the recent, and generally adverse, trend to Italian taxpayers in this type of litigation. Although we believe that our defensive arguments are strong, noting the adverse trend in some of the court decisions, we have recognized a reserve for an uncertain tax position of €17.0 million (approximately $20.0 million). Other Matters 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 liquidity.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration