XML 31 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Commitments and contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Apr. 01, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies Leases The Company leases its office facilities as well as other property, vehicles and equipment under operating leases. The Company also leases certain office equipment under nominal finance leases. The remaining lease terms range from 1 month to 10 years. The components of lease cost were as follows:
|  |  | Three Months Ended
|  |  |  |  | April 1, 2023 |  | April 2, 2022
Operating lease cost |  |  |  |  | $ | 1,069 |  |  | $ | 1,126 |
Short-term lease cost(a) |  |  |  |  | 206 |  |  | 183 |
Financing lease cost: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amortization of finance lease assets |  |  |  |  | 235 |  |  | 9 |
Interest on lease liabilities |  |  |  |  | 137 |  |  | 1 |
Total lease cost |  |  |  |  | $ | 1,647 |  |  | $ | 1,319 |
(a)Includes variable lease cost and sublease income, which are immaterial. Supplemental cash flow information and non-cash activity related to operating leases were as follows:
| Three Months Ended
| April 1, 2023 |  | April 2, 2022
Cash paid for amounts included in measurement of lease liabilities: |  |  |
Operating cash flows from operating leases | $ | 1,100 |  |  | $ | 1,254 |
Operating cash flows from financing leases | $ | 90 |  |  | $ | 1 |
Financing cash flows from finance leases | $ | 37 |  |  | $ | 13 |
Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations: |  |  |
Operating lease obligations | $ | 225 |  |  | $ | — |
Financing lease obligations | $ | 9,141 |  |  | $ | — |
Supplemental balance sheet and other information related to operating leases were as follows:
| April 1, 2023 |  | December 31, 2022
Operating lease assets(a) | $ | 16,063 |  | $ | 16,690
Operating lease liabilities- current(b) | $ | 3,854 |  | $ | 3,552
Operating lease liabilities- noncurrent(b) | 13,455 |  | 14,355
Total operating lease liabilities | $ | 17,309 |  | $ | 17,907
Property, plant and equipment - net (finance leases) | $ | 9,034 |  | $ | 128
Finance lease liabilities - current | $ | 419 |  | $ | 55
Finance lease liabilities - noncurrent | 6,602 |  | 76
Total financing lease liabilities | $ | 7,021 |  | $ | 131
Weighted average remaining lease term (years) for leases |  |  |
Operating leases | 4.6 |  | 4.8
Finance leases | 10.0 |  | 2.4
Weighted average discount rate for leases |  |  |
Operating leases | 4.6 | % |  | 4.8 | %
Finance leases | 8.0 | % |  | 3.3 | %
(a)Operating lease assets totaling $618 attributable to CartiHeal was reclassified to long-term assets attributable to discontinued operations within the December 31, 2022 consolidated balance sheets. Refer to Note 3. Acquisitions and divestitures and Note 14. Discontinued operations for further details regarding the deconsolidation of CartiHeal. (b)Operating lease liabilities-current totaling $176 and operating lease liabilities-noncurrent of $442 were reclassified into current liabilities attributable to discontinued operations and long-term liabilities attributable to discontinued operations, respectively, within the December 31, 2022 consolidated balance sheets. Refer to Note 3. Acquisitions and divestitures and Note 14. Discontinued operations for further details regarding the deconsolidation of CartiHeal. Governmental and legal contingencies In the normal course of business, the Company periodically becomes involved in various claims and lawsuits, and governmental proceedings and investigations that are incidental to its business. The Company accrues a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible but not probable, the Company does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature and amount of the claim, and an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can be made. Legal fees are expensed as incurred. With respect to governmental proceedings and investigations, like other companies in the industry, the Company is subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local governmental agencies in the United States and in other jurisdictions in which the Company and its affiliates operate. As a result, interaction with governmental agencies is ongoing. The Company’s standard practice is to cooperate with regulators and investigators in responding to inquiries. The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of these matters. As such, the Company is presently unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any, related to these matters. While the Company intends to defend these matters vigorously, the outcome of such litigation or any other litigation is necessarily uncertain, is not within the Company’s complete control and might not be known for extended periods of time. In the opinion of management, the outcome of any existing claims and legal or regulatory proceedings, other than the specific matters described below, if decided adversely, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Bioventus shareholder litigation On January 12, 2023, the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of North Carolina, Ciarciello v. Bioventus, Inc., No. 1:23– CV – 00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. 2023). The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and generally alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding rebate practices, its business and financial prospects, and the sufficiency of internal controls regarding financial reporting. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2023, the Court appointed Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff’s amended consolidated complaint is due to be filed with the Court on June 12, 2023. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint is due on July 17, 2023. The Company believes the claims alleged lack merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The outcome of the litigation is not presently determinable, and any loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable. Bioness patent litigation On June 15, 2022, the Company, through its subsidiary Bioness, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Aretech, LLC (“Aretech”) alleging infringement by Aretech of various patents related the Bioness’ Vector Gait and Safety Support System®. On August 8, 2022, Aretech filed an answer to the lawsuit denying infringement and asserting various affirmative defenses and counterclaims to the Bioness complaint. Bioness filed a motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims on September 28, 2022. In response to Bioness’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims, on October 19, 2022, Aretech filed an amended answer and counterclaims. On November 16, 2022, Bioness filed a partial motion to dismiss certain of the amended counterclaims. On January 23, 2023, the court granted-in-part Bioness’ motion dismissing Aretech’s antitrust and inventorship-related counterclaims, but allowed certain of Aretech’s counterclaims to proceed. On March 23, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement and license agreement that resolved all claims in the litigation. The agreement also provides cross licenses to the parties for certain of their respective patents relevant to the claims asserted in the litigation. Misonix stockholder On September 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of Misonix filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Stein v. Misonix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05127 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Stein Complaint”). The Stein Complaint named Misonix and members of its board of directors as defendants. The Stein Complaint was dismissed on April 6, 2022. On September 16, 2021, a purported stockholder of Misonix filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Ciccotelli v. Misonix, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Ciccotelli Complaint”) against Misonix, members of its board of directors, the Company, and its subsidiaries, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II, as defendants. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Ciccotelli Complaint on November 10, 2021. On October 12, 2021, another purported stockholder of Misonix filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Rubin v. Misonix, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05672 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Rubin Complaint”) and on October 15, 2021, another purported stockholder of Misonix filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Taylor v. Misonix, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08513 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Taylor Complaint”). The Rubin Complaint and the Taylor Complaint name Misonix and members of its board of directors as defendants. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Rubin and Taylor Complaints on January 21, 2022 and February 18, 2022, respectively. The complaints asserted claims under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, challenging the adequacy of disclosures in the proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on September 8, 2021 or the Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on September 24, 2021, regarding Misonix and/or Bioventus’ projections and J.P. Morgan’s financial analysis. The complaints had sought, among other relief, (i) injunctive relief preventing the parties from proceeding with the merger; (ii) rescission in the event that the merger is consummated; and (iii) an award of costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. Misonix former distributor On March 23, 2017, Misonix’s former distributor in China, Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit against Misonix and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleged that Misonix improperly terminated its contract with the former distributor. The complaint sought various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages, specific performance and preliminary and post judgment injunctive relief, and asserted various causes of action, including breach of contract, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, fraudulent inducement, and conversion. On October 7, 2017, the court granted Misonix’s motion to dismiss each of the tort claims asserted against Misonix, and also granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them. On January 23, 2020, the court granted Cicel’s motion to amend its complaint, to include claims for alleged defamation and theft of trade secrets in addition to the breach of contract claim. Discovery in the matter ended on August 5, 2021. On January 20, 2022, the court granted Misonix’s summary judgment motion on Cicel’s breach of contract and defamation claims. Cicel’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment ruling in Misonix’s favor was dismissed by the Court on April 29, 2022. On July 18, 2022, Cicel voluntarily dismissed the remaining claim for trade secret theft and later filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company believes that it has various legal and factual defenses to these claims and intends to vigorously defend the appeal of the lower court’s summary judgment rulings in its favor. Bioness shareholder Prior to closing the Bioness Acquisition, Bioness had been named as a defendant in a lawsuit, for which the Company is indemnified under the indemnification provisions contained in the Bioness Merger Agreement. The case relates to an action brought in February 2021 in the Delaware State Court of Chancery by a former minority shareholder and director of Bioness, seeking a temporary restraining order contesting the acquisition of Bioness. While the complaint to block the Bioness acquisition was dismissed by the court, a separate action was brought against the Company under the indemnification provisions of the Bioness Certificate of Incorporation to recover attorney fees and other expenses totaling approximately $3,000 incurred by the director and shareholder in connection with the matter. On August 19, 2021, the court issued a ruling granting, in part, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees and related expenses incurred in connection with performance of the plaintiff’s directorial duties, and denying fees and expenses incurred in a non-director capacity. In its ruling, the court’s order also directed the parties to agree upon a process that will govern the payment of and challenges to plaintiff’s payment requests and required Bioness to pay 50% of the demanded amount into escrow if more than 50% of the total invoiced amount was in dispute. Pursuant to the court’s order, Bioness paid approximately $1,300 into escrow. On November 1, 2022, at a hearing before Delaware State Court of Chancery, the court ruled in favor of the former Bioness director awarding attorney’s fees in connection with the underlying pre-merger litigation and the advancement action in the amounts claimed, less approximately $50. On December 23, 2022, Bioness and the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement resolving the matter for the aggregate sum of $2,500 payable to the plaintiff. The settlement was satisfied by releasing the $1,300 previously paid by Bioness and held in escrow and by an additional payment of $1,200. Pursuant to the indemnification obligations under the Bioness Merger Agreement, this subsequent payment was made on behalf of Bioness on December 28. 2022, by the selling majority shareholder under that agreement. The Company subsequently recovered the $1,300 paid into escrow from the selling Bioness shareholders pursuant an indemnification request under the Bioness Merger Agreement. An order dismissing the case was entered by the court on January 27, 2023. On February 8, 2022, the above referenced minority shareholder of Bioness filed another action in the Delaware State Court of Chancery in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Bioness. This action names the former Bioness directors, the Alfred E. Mann Trust (Trust), which was the former majority shareholder of Bioness, the trustees of the Trust and Bioventus as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual directors, the Trust, and the trustees breached their fiduciary duty to the plaintiff in connection with their consideration and approval of the Company’s transaction. The complaint also alleges that the Company aided and abetted the other defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and that the Company breached the Merger Agreement by failing to pay the plaintiff its pro rata share of the merger consideration. The Company believes that it is indemnified under the indemnification provisions contained in the Bioness Merger Agreement for these claims. On July 20, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims made against it on various grounds, as did all the other named defendants in the suit. A hearing on Bioness’ and other the defendant’s motions was held before the Court of Chancery on January 19, 2023. The Company believes that there are various legal and factual defenses to the claims plaintiff made against us and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. On April 27, 2023, the Court issued an order which, among other things, dismissed Bioventus from the case. Other matters On November 10, 2021, the Company entered into an asset purchase agreement for an HA product and made an upfront payment of $853. An additional payment of $853 was made in 2022 upon the transfer of certain seller customer data. If the Company is able to obtain a Medical Device Regulation Certification for the product, $1,707 will be paid to the seller within five days. The Company is required to pay royalties through 2026 of 5.0% on the first $569 in sales and 2.5% thereafter. On August 23, 2019, the Company was assigned a third-party license on a product currently in development and the Company is subject to a 3% royalty on certain commercial sales, or a nominal minimum amount per quarter. On May 29, 2019, the Company and the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, Inc. d/b/a MTF Biologics (MTF), entered into a collaboration and development agreement to develop one or more products for orthopedic application to be commercialized by the Company and supplied by MTF (the Development Agreement). The first phase has been completed, but during the second quarter of 2022, the Company elected to discontinue the development of MOTYS, the initial product candidate under development. On October 21, 2022, the Company provided notice to MTF of termination of the Development Agreement and the related cGTP Commercial Supply Agreement with MTF for MOTYS, effective December 20, 2022. On December 9, 2016, the Company entered into an amended and restated license agreement for the exclusive U.S. distribution and commercialization rights of a single injection osteoarthritis (OA) product with the supplier of the Company’s single injection OA product for the non-U.S. market. The agreement requires the Company to meet annual minimum purchase requirements and pay royalties on net sales. Royalties related to this agreement during the three months ended April 1, 2023 and April 2, 2022 totaled $2,321 and $3,332, respectively. These royalties are included in cost of sales within the consolidated condensed statements of operations and comprehensive loss. As part of a supply agreement entered on February 9, 2016 for the Company’s three injection OA product, the Company is subject to annual minimum purchase requirements for 10 years. After the initial 10 years, the agreement will automatically renew for an additional 5 years unless terminated by the Company or the seller in accordance with the agreement. As part of a supply agreement for the Company’s five injection OA product that was amended and restated on December 22, 2020, the Company is subject to annual minimum purchase requirements for 8 years. The Company has an exclusive license agreement for bioactive bone graft putty. The Company is required to pay a royalty on all commercial sales revenue from the licensed products with a minimum annual royalty payment through 2023, the date the agreement will expire, upon the expiration of the patent held by the licensor. These royalties are included in cost of sales on the consolidated condensed statements of operations and comprehensive loss. From time to time, the Company causes letters of credit (“LOCs”) to be issued to provide credit support for guarantees, contractual commitments and insurance policies. The fair values of the LOCs reflect the amount of the underlying obligation and are subject to fees payable to the issuers, competitively determined in the marketplace. As of April 1, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the Company had one LOC outstanding for a nominal amount. The Company currently maintains insurance for risks associated with the operation of its business, provision of professional services and ownership of property. These policies provide coverage for a variety of potential losses, including loss or damage to property, bodily injury, general commercial liability, professional errors and omissions and medical malpractice. The Company is self-insured for health insurance covering most of its employees located in the United States. The Company maintains stop-loss insurance on a “claims made” basis for expenses in excess of $200 per member per year.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 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 https://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 https://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