XML 37 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims and governmental inspections, audits or investigations pertaining to issues such as contract disputes, product liability, tax matters, patents and trademarks, advertising, governmental regulations, employment and other matters, including the matters described below. Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into with Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”) prior to the Spin-off, legal proceedings, claims and other liabilities that are primarily related to our business are our responsibility and we are obligated to indemnify and hold Kimberly-Clark harmless for such matters (“Indemnification Obligation”). For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we have incurred $21 million, $20 million and $17 million, respectively, related to these matters. Chondrolysis Litigation An exception to our Indemnification Obligation relates to the pain pump litigation referenced in this paragraph. We are one of several manufacturers of continuous infusion medical devices, such as our ON-Q PAINBUSTER pain pumps, that are involved in several different pending or threatened litigation matters from multiple plaintiffs alleging that use of the continuous infusion device to deliver anesthetics directly into a synovial joint after surgery resulted in postarthroscopic glenohumeral chondrolysis, or a disintegration of the cartilage covering the bones in the joint (typically, in the shoulder). Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. Although Kimberly-Clark generally retained the liabilities related to these matters, the distribution agreement between us and Kimberly-Clark provides that we will indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any such claims or causes of action arising after the Spin-off. Surgical Gown Litigation and Related Matters Bahamas Surgery Center We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) (“Bahamas”), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns. On April 7, 2017, after a two-week trial, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $4 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350 million in punitive damages, and that Halyard was liable for $0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $100 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff’s UCL claim and request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff’s request for restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. On May 25, 2017, we filed three post-trial motions: a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; a motion to decertify the class; and a motion for new trial, remittitur, or amendment of the judgment. The renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law seeks to have the court reverse the jury’s verdict in whole or in part because it was based on insufficient facts and/or did not correctly apply the law. The motion to decertify the class seeks to have the court decertify the class on the basis that the evidence at trial did not support the Court’s initial class certification order and therefore the case should not have proceeded as a class action. The motion for new trial, remittitur or amendment of the judgment seeks, among other relief, to have the court reduce the jury’s punitive damages award because it was not supported by the facts and was excessive in violation of due process under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the Constitutional outer limit for the ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages in cases such as ours is approximately 9 to 1 or lower, and we believe that in a case such as ours that, if there is any award of punitive damages (a premise we dispute), the ratio should be 1 to 1. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the Bahamas matter. Kimberly-Clark Corporation We have notified Kimberly-Clark that we have reserved our rights to challenge any purported obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for the punitive damages awarded against them. In connection with our reservation of rights, on May 1, 2017, we filed a complaint in the matter styled Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No. BC659662 (County of Los Angeles, Superior Court of California). In that case, we seek a declaratory judgment that we have no obligation, under the Distribution Agreement or otherwise, to indemnify, pay, reimburse, assume, or otherwise cover punitive damages assessed against Kimberly-Clark in Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 14-CV-08390 (C.D. Cal., originally filed on October 29, 2014), or any Expenses or Losses (as defined in the distribution agreement) associated with an award of punitive damages. On May 2, 2017, Kimberly-Clark filed a complaint in the matter styled Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Halyard Health, Inc., Case No. 2017-0332-AGB (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware). In that case, Kimberly-Clark seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) we must indemnify them for all damages, including punitive damages, assessed against them in the Bahamas matter, (2) we have anticipatorily and materially breached the Distribution Agreement by our failure to indemnify them, and (3) we are estopped from asserting, or have otherwise waived, any claim that we are not required to indemnify them for all damages, including punitive damages, that may be awarded in the Bahamas matter. On May 26, 2017, we moved to dismiss or stay Kimberly-Clark’s Delaware complaint, and on June 16, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved for summary judgment. On September 12, 2017, the Delaware court granted our motion to stay Kimberly-Clark’s complaint and therefore did not take any action on Kimberly-Clark’s motion for summary judgment. We intend to vigorously pursue our case against Kimberly-Clark in California and to vigorously defend against their case against us. Government Investigation In June 2015, we were served with a subpoena from the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General (“VA OIG”) seeking information related to the design, manufacture, testing, sale and promotion of MicroCool and other Company surgical gowns, and, in July 2015, we also became aware that the subpoena and an earlier VA OIG subpoena served on Kimberly-Clark requesting information about gown sales to the federal government are related to a United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation. In May 2016 and April 2017, we received additional subpoenas from the DOJ seeking further information related to Company gowns. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ investigation. Shahinian and Edgett On October 12, 2016, after the DOJ and various States declined to intervene in two qui tam matters, both matters were unsealed and the complaints were subsequently served on Kimberly-Clark and Halyard, as applicable. One of those matters is U.S. ex rel. Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, No. 2:14-cv-08313-JAK-JPR (C. D. Cal.) (“Shahinian”), filed on October 27, 2014. The other matter is U.S. ex rel. Edgett, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Halyard Health, Inc., et al, No. 3:15-cv-00434-B (N.D. Tex.) (“Edgett”), filed on February 9, 2015. Both cases allege, among other things, violations of the federal and various state False Claims Acts in connection with the marketing and sale of certain surgical gowns. Shahinian: On March 8, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss the Shahinian complaint, and on July 14, 2017, the California court granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion while also granting the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint. On August 11, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss the complaint, and on November 30, 2017, the California court again granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion while also granting the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The plaintiff then filed a third amended complaint. On January 18, 2018, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss it. Edgett: On May 17, 2017, Kimberly-Clark and Halyard moved to dismiss the Edgett complaint. On September 22, 2017, the court granted Kimberly-Clark’s and Halyard’s motions to dismiss, and on November 6, 2017, the court entered final judgment dismissing the Edgett complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the entry of judgment. We may have an Indemnification Obligation for the Shahinian and Edgett matters under the distribution agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining claims. Kromenaker On March 17, 2017, the DOJ submitted a filing declining to intervene in another qui tam matter, and the complaint was unsealed and subsequently served on Kimberly-Clark and Halyard. That matter is styled U.S. ex rel. Kromenaker v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-04413-SCJ (N. D. Ga.) (“Kromenaker”), filed on December 21, 2015. In that case, the plaintiff alleges, among other things, violations of the federal False Claims Act in connection with the marketing and sale of certain products, including feminine hygiene products, surgical gowns and endotracheal tubes. On June 12, 2017, Kimberly-Clark and Halyard moved to dismiss the complaint. On August 21, 2017, Kromenaker filed an amended complaint, and Kimberly-Clark and Halyard filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on September 20, 2017. We may have an Indemnification Obligation for certain parts of this matter under the distribution agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. Jackson We were served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially inflated the Company’s stock prices during the respective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Halyard Health securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Halyard Health securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016. On February 16, 2017, we moved to dismiss the case. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this matter. Richardson, Chiu and Pick We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Margaret C. Richardson Trustee of the Survivors Trust Dated 6/12/84 for the Benefit of the H&M Richardson Revocable Trust v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-06296 (S. D. N. Y.) (“Richardson”), filed on August 9, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Halyard Health, Inc., and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty, were unjustly enriched, and violated Section 14(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act in connection with Halyard Health, Inc.’s marketing and sale of MicroCool gowns. We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Kai Chiu v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al, No. 2:16-cv-08768 (C.D. Cal.), filed on November 23, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Halyard Health, Inc., and makes allegations and brings causes of action similar to those in Richardson, but the plaintiff also adds causes of action for abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Lukas Pick v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al. No. e:18-cv-00295 (D. Del.), filed of February 21, 2018. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Halyard Health, Inc., and makes allegations and brings causes of action similar to those in Richardson and Chiu. We intend to vigorously defend these matters. Medline Industries We were also served with a complaint in the matter styled Medline Industries, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Halyard Health, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08571 (C. D. Cal.), filed on November 17, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff makes allegations similar to those in Bahamas, Shahinian, and Edgett, and brings causes of action under federal and state false advertising laws and state unfair competition laws. On March 31, 2017, we moved to dismiss certain of Medline’s claims and to transfer any surviving claims from California to Georgia. On June 2, 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to Georgia and denied without prejudice our motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2017, now before the court in Georgia and with the case re-styled as Medline Industries, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Halyard Health, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-02032 (N. D. Ga.), Kimberly-Clark and Halyard filed renewed motions to dismiss certain of Medline’s claims. We may have an Indemnification Obligation for this matter under the distribution agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. Naeyaert On April 13, 2017, Kimberly-Clark was served with a complaint in the matter styled Christopher Naeyaert v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., No. PSC 1603503 (County of Riverside, Superior Court of California), filed on July 21, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff makes allegations similar to those in Bahamas and brings causes of action similar to those in Bahamas, except the allegations and causes of action relate to the Ultra surgical gown. On June 5, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss the complaint. On August 21, 2017, Naeyaert filed an amended complaint and on September 18, 2017, Kimberly-Clark filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We may have an Indemnification Obligation for this matter under the distribution agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. Patent Litigation We operate in an industry characterized by extensive patent litigation and competitors may claim that our products infringe upon their intellectual property. Resolution of patent litigation or other intellectual property claims is typically time consuming and costly and can result in significant damage awards and injunctions that could prevent the manufacture and sale of the affected products or require us to make significant royalty payments in order to continue selling the affected products. At any given time we may be involved as either a plaintiff or a defendant in a number of patent infringement actions, the outcomes of which may not be known for prolonged periods of time. General While we maintain general and professional liability, product liability and other insurance, our insurance policies may not cover all of these matters and may not fully cover liabilities arising out of these matters. In addition, we may be obligated to indemnify our directors and officers against these matters. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not materially impact our liquidity, access to capital markets or ability to conduct our daily operations. As of December 31, 2017, we have an accrued liability for the matters described herein. The accrued liability is included in “Accrued Expenses” in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. Our estimate of these liabilities is based on facts and circumstances existing at this time, along with other variables. Factors that may affect our estimate include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in the number of lawsuits filed against us, including the potential for similar, duplicate or “copycat” lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions, including lawsuits that bring causes or action or allege violations of law with regard to additional products; (ii) changes in the legal costs of defending such claims; (iii) changes in the nature of the lawsuits filed against us, (iv) changes in the applicable law governing any legal claims against us; (v) a determination that our assumptions used in estimating the liability are no longer reasonable; and (vi) the uncertainties associated with the judicial process, including adverse judgments rendered by courts or juries. Thus, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be different than the accrued amount. Additionally, the above matters, regardless of the outcome, could disrupt our business and result in substantial costs and diversion of management attention. Environmental Compliance We are subject to federal, state and local environmental protection laws and regulations with respect to our business operations and are operating in compliance with, or taking action aimed at ensuring compliance with, these laws and regulations. None of our compliance obligations with environmental protection laws and regulations, individually or in the aggregate, is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Operating Leases We have entered into operating leases for principal executive offices, located in Alpharetta, Georgia, as well as certain warehouse, manufacturing and distribution facilities. The future minimum obligations under operating leases, including those associated with discontinued operations, having a non-cancelable term in excess of one year are as follows (in millions):
Year |  | Amount
2018 |  | $ | 18.0 |
2019 |  | 15.6 |
2020 |  | 11.2 |
2021 |  | 10.0 |
2022 |  | 9.2 |
Thereafter |  | 39.2 |
Future minimum obligations |  | $ | 103.2 |
Rental expense under all operating leases, including those associated with discontinued operations, was $24 million, $22 million and $22 million in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration