XML 34 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation The SEC’s Division of Enforcement has asked the Company to provide documents and information concerning the Company’s accounting and disclosures. The Company is cooperating with the SEC’s investigation. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, or whether it will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On January 11, 2018, Tom Redlich, a former employee, filed a lawsuit against the Company, demanding supplemental compensation pursuant to an agreement allegedly entered into with Sirona Dental GmbH which was intended to entice Mr. Redlich to continue to work for the Company for no less than eight years following the date of this agreement. The Company filed its response on April 4, 2018, denying the authenticity and enforceability of, and all liability under, the alleged agreement. Mr. Jost Fischer, upon invitation of the Company, joined the litigation against Mr. Redlich as a third party. In his submission to the Court, Mr. Fischer disputed the central allegations raised by Mr. Redlich in his lawsuit. The Court held several hearings in the matter, and then closed the hearings in June 2019 pending the Court’s decision on the capacity of Mr. Fischer to enter into a binding agreement of the type alleged by Mr. Redlich in the manner alleged. On November 5, 2019, the Company received the Court’s judgment rejecting Mr. Redlich’s lawsuit and dismissing his claims. Mr. Redlich appealed in December 2019 and the Company filed its response in January 2020 seeking to uphold the Court’s ruling. On February 27, 2020, the Company received the Appellate Court’s decision rejecting Mr. Redlich’s appeal and upholding the decision of the lower court dismissing his claims. The Court of Appeals has denied Mr. Redlich the right to file a further appeal in this matter, however, on March 23, 2020, Mr. Redlich filed an extraordinary appeal with the Austrian Supreme Court which will assess the appeal. If the Austrian Supreme Court accepts Mr. Redlich’s extraordinary appeal, the Company will then file its response. On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a former wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims. The plaintiff class alleges several violations of the California wage and hours laws, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime. The parties have engaged in written and other discovery. On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the same counsel as Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate representative action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the Private Attorneys’ General Act that is based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit. On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the Private Attorneys’ General Act that is based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit. The parties intend to participate in a mediation later in 2020 and the case will be stayed until that time. The Company continues to vigorously defend against these matters. On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws (the "State Court Class Action") by making material misrepresentations and omitting required information in the December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with the Merger. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and that three distributors of the Company's products had been engaging in anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of a class of former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their shares for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, and to stay all proceedings pending resolution of the Federal Class Action described below. On August 2, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motions to stay discovery and to stay all proceedings. On August 21, 2019, the Company filed a notice of appeal of that decision. Briefing has not yet commenced on that appeal. On September 26, 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims. The associated judgment was entered on September 30, 2019. On October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the motion to dismiss decision and the judgment. On November 4, 2019, the Company filed a notice of cross-appeal of select rulings in the Court's motion to dismiss decision. On October 9, 2019, the plaintiffs moved by order to show cause to vacate or modify the judgment and grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On February 4, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On March 5, 2020, the plaintiffs also filed a notice of appeal from the denial of their motion to vacate or modify the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint. On December 19, 2018, a related putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain individual defendants (the "Federal Class Action"). The plaintiff makes similar allegations and asserts the same claims as those asserted in the State Court Class Action. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated U.S. securities laws by making false and misleading statements in quarterly and annual reports and other public statements between February 20, 2014, and August 7, 2018. The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of (a) all purchasers of the Company's stock during the period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger. The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was served on August 15, 2019. Briefing was completed on October 21, 2019 and the Company is awaiting the decision of the Court. On April 29, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company's directors (the "Stockholder's Derivative Action"). Based on allegations similar to those asserted in the class actions described above, the plaintiffs allege that the directors caused the Company to misrepresent its business prospects and thereby subjected the Company to multiple securities class actions and other litigation. On September 20, 2019, the plaintiffs in the Stockholder's Derivative Action filed an amended derivative complaint on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company's directors. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the U.S. securities laws. The plaintiffs seek relief that includes, among other things, monetary damages and various corporate governance reforms. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on July 31, 2020 the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation to the District Court Judge recommending dismissal of the case with prejudice. The Company is awaiting a decision by the District Court Judge adopting the Magistrate Judge's decision. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these actions. As a result of an audit by the IRS for fiscal years 2012 through 2013, on February 11, 2019, the IRS issued to the Company a “30-day letter” and a Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”), relating to the Company’s worthless stock deduction in 2013 in the amount of $546.0 million. The RAR disallows the deduction and, after adjusting the Company’s net operating loss carryforward, asserts that the Company is entitled to a refund of $4.7 million for 2012, has no tax liability for 2013, and owes a deficiency of $17.1 million in tax for 2014, excluding interest. In accordance with ASC 740, the Company recorded the tax benefit associated with the worthless stock deduction in the Company’s 2012 financial statements. The Company has submitted a formal protest disputing on multiple grounds the proposed taxes. The Company believes the IRS' position is without merit and believes that it is more-likely-than-not the Company’s position will be sustained upon further review. The Company has not accrued a liability relating to the proposed tax adjustments. However, the outcome of this dispute involves a number of uncertainties, including those inherent in the valuation of various assets at the time of the worthless stock deduction, and those relating to the application of the Internal Revenue Code and other federal income tax authorities and judicial precedent. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the dispute with the IRS will be resolved favorably. If determined adversely, the dispute would result in a current period charge to earnings and could have a material adverse effect in the consolidated results of operations, financial position, and liquidity of the Company. The Swedish Tax Agency has disallowed certain of the Company’s interest expense deductions for the tax years from 2013 to 2017 and is also expected to do the same for the 2018 tax year. If such interest expense deductions were disallowed, the Company would be subject to an additional $41.0 million in tax expense. The Company has appealed the disallowance to the Swedish Administrative Court. With respect to such deductions taken in the tax years from 2013 to 2014, the Court ruled against the Company on July 5, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the Company appealed the unfavorable decision of the Swedish Administrative Court. On November 5, 2018, the Company delivered its final argument to the Administrative Court of Appeals at a hearing. The European Union Commission has taken the view that Sweden’s interest deduction limitation rules are incompatible with European Union law and supporting legal opinions, and therefore the Company has not paid the tax or made provision in its financial statements for such potential expense. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position and pursue related appeals. In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company is, from time to time, subject to a variety of litigation and similar proceedings incidental to its business. These additional legal matters involve a variety of matters, including claims for damages arising out of the use of the Company’s products and services and claims relating to intellectual property matters including patent infringement, employment matters, tax matters, commercial disputes, competition and sales and trading practices, personal injury, and insurance coverage. The Company may also become subject to lawsuits as a result of past or future acquisitions or as a result of liabilities retained from, or representations, warranties or indemnities provided in connection with, divested businesses. Some of these lawsuits may include claims for punitive and consequential, as well as compensatory damages. Based upon the Company’s experience, current information and applicable law, it does not believe that these additional legal matters will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or liquidity. However, in the event of unexpected further developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, or other similar matters, if unfavorable, may be materially adverse to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. While the Company maintains general, product, property, workers’ compensation, automobile, cargo, aviation, crime, fiduciary and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance up to certain limits that cover certain of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or unavailable to cover such losses. In addition, while the Company believes it is entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these claims, these rights may also be insufficient or unavailable to cover such losses.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -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