XML 34 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Contractual Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contractual Commitments and Contingencies | Contractual Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous civil claims and lawsuits and subject to regulatory examinations, investigations, and requests for information. Some of these matters involve claims for substantial amounts. The Company’s experience has shown that the damages alleged by plaintiffs or claimants are often overstated, based on unsubstantiated legal theories, unsupported by facts, and/or bear no relation to the ultimate award that a court might grant. Additionally, the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. These factors make it difficult for the Company to provide a meaningful estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes of claims in the aggregate or by individual claim. However, on a case-by-case basis, reserves are established for those legal claims in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company's unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2021 reflect the Company's current best estimate of probable losses associated with these matters, including costs to comply with various settlement agreements, where applicable. The actual costs of resolving these claims, as well as the cost to resolve claims that are either not probable or not estimable at this time, may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved. For more information regarding the Company’s legal proceedings, refer to Note 14, “Commitments and Contingencies” in the 2020 Form 10-K. As of June 30, 2021, the Company has accrued $4.5 million related to the legal proceedings. The Company is entitled to indemnification from insurance companies in connection with legal proceedings of $0.4 million. This indemnification receivable is recorded as part of other current assets in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2021. The Company paid $6.5 million toward the resolution of legal matters involving the Company during the six months ended June 30, 2021. In addition, $0.7 million was paid on the Company’s behalf through insurance providers during the six months ended June 30, 2021. In addition, the Company received funds from certain director and officer insurance policies for previously-incurred legal expenses under the Company’s indemnification agreements. These funds were recognized as a reduction to investigation, restatement, and related expense during each of the three and six months ended June 30, 2021. The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters: Securities Class Action On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 26, 2018). The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois (“CPFI”) as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, CPFI filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. “Pete” Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP. The amended complaint (the “Securities Class Action Complaint”) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It asserted a class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018. Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various defendants, CPFI was granted leave to file an amended complaint. CPFI filed its amended complaint against the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert & Holland (Christopher Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March 30, 2020; defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020. On March 25, 2021, the Court granted defendants’ respective motions to dismiss, finding that CPFI lacked standing to bring the underlying claims and also could not establish loss causation because it sold all of its shares in MiMedx prior to any corrective disclosures, and dismissed the case. On April 22, 2021, CPFI filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and for leave to amend to add a new plaintiff to attempt to cure the standing and loss causation issues. The Company has opposed CPFI’s motions and the hearing on the same scheduled for July 28, 2021 has been postponed; no new date has yet been set. Investigations Department of Veterans’ Affairs Office of Inspector General (“VA-OIG”) and Civil Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ-Civil”) Subpoenas and/or Investigations VA-OIG has issued subpoenas to the Company seeking, among other things, information concerning the Company’s financial relationships with VA clinicians. DOJ-Civil has requested similar information. The Company has cooperated fully and produced responsive information to VA-OIG and DOJ-Civil. Periodically, VA-OIG has requested additional documents and information regarding payments to individual VA clinicians. Most recently, on June 3, 2020, the Company received a subpoena from the VA-OIG requesting information regarding the Company’s financial relationships and interactions with two healthcare providers at the VA Long Beach Healthcare System. The Company has continued to cooperate and respond to these requests. At this time the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the investigation, including whether the investigation will result in any action or proceeding against us. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General Investigation On February 8, 2021, the Company received a subpoena issued by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General seeking records regarding the sales of the Company’s micronized and other products to federal medical facilities and federal contracting offices, including those operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense. The subpoena also seeks information regarding the Company’s communications with the FDA regarding its products. The Company understands that the Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington Civil Division is overseeing the investigation, which is being conducted principally by agents employed by the Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Command. The Company is cooperating with the government’s investigation and at this time the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the investigation, including whether the investigation will result in any action or proceeding against us. Former Employee Litigation and Related Matters On November 19, 2018, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia (Michael J. Senken v. MiMedx Group, Inc.) in which he claims that the Company has breached its obligations under the Company’s charter and bylaws to advance to him, and indemnify him for, his legal fees and costs that he incurred in connection with certain Company internal investigations and litigation. The Company filed its answer denying the plaintiff’s claims on April 19, 2019. To date, no deadlines have been established by the court. On January 12, 2021, the Company filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial District in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida (MiMedx Group, Inc. v. Petit, et. al.) against its former CEO, Parker H. “Pete” Petit, and its former COO, William C. Taylor, seeking a determination of its rights and obligations under indemnification agreements with Petit and Taylor following a federal jury’s guilty verdict against Petit for securities fraud and Taylor for conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to indemnify or advance expenses to Petit and Taylor in connection with certain cases to which Petit and Taylor are parties and also seeking to recoup amounts previously paid on behalf of Petit and Taylor in connection with such cases. On April 22, 2021, Petit and Taylor filed an answer and asserted counterclaims against the Company alleging breach of their indemnification agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to their indemnification agreements, and seeking a declaration that the Company remains obligated to indemnify and advance fees in connection with certain cases. Petit and Taylor simultaneously also filed a motion seeking to compel the Company to advance and reinstate its payments of Petit and Taylor’s legal expenses. The Company opposed Petit and Taylor’s motion and a hearing was set for June 23, 2021. At the joint request of the parties, the hearing was cancelled to allow the parties to attend a mediation to attempt a resolution of this matter; such mediation is currently scheduled for August 11, 2021. On April 15, 2021, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, and Kobre Kim, LLP, law firms who have represented Mr. Petit and Mr. Taylor in various legal actions, including their criminal trial, filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York against the Company (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, et al. v. MiMedx Group, Inc.) for breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, and account stated seeking to enforce the Company’s alleged obligation to pay the firms for the legal fees and expenses incurred during their representations of Mr. Petit and Mr. Taylor. The parties have settled this matter and the case has been dismissed. The settlement reduced the Company’s liability to the plaintiffs, with respect to their representations of Messrs. Petit and Taylor, by $2.4 million. This reduction was included in investigation, restatement, and related expense on the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for each of the three and six months ended June 30, 2021. The Company has paid the settlement amount and has no continuing obligations to the plaintiffs. Defamation Claims On June 4, 2018, Sparrow Fund Management, LP (“Sparrow”) filed a complaint against the Company and Mr. Petit, including claims for defamation and civil conspiracy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sparrow Fund Management, L.P. v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et. al.). The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief and alleges the defendants commenced a campaign to publicly discredit Sparrow by falsely claiming it was a short seller who engaged in illegal and criminal behavior by spreading false information in an attempt to manipulate the price of our common stock. On March 31, 2019, a judge granted defendants’ motions to dismiss in full, but allowed Sparrow the ability to file an amended complaint. The Magistrate has recommended Sparrow’s motion for leave to amend be granted in part and denied in part and the Judge adopted the Magistrate’s recommendation. Sparrow filed its amended complaint against MiMedx (Mr. Petit has been dropped from the lawsuit) on April 3, 2020 and the Company filed its answer. This case is in discovery. On June 17, 2019, the principals of Viceroy Research (“Viceroy”), filed suit in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida (Fraser John Perring et. al. v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et. al.) against the Company and Mr. Petit, alleging defamation and malicious prosecution based on the defendants’ alleged campaign to publicly discredit Viceroy and the lawsuit the Company previously filed against the plaintiffs, but which the Company subsequently dismissed without prejudice. On November 1, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Petit’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies in its claims against Mr. Petit, which they did on November 21, 2019. The parties have settled this matter and the case has been dismissed. Other Matters Under the Florida Business Corporation Act and agreements with its current and former officers and directors, the Company is obligated to indemnify its current and former officers and directors who are made party to a proceeding, including a proceeding brought by or in the right of the corporation, with certain exceptions, and to advance expenses to defend such matters. The Company has already borne substantial costs to satisfy these indemnification and expense advance obligations and may continue to do so in the future. In addition to the matters described above, the Company is a party to a variety of other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of the Company’s business, none of which is deemed to be individually material at this time. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, 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://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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration