XML 28 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.1.u1

Commitments and contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 30, 2024
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 9.1 years. The components of lease cost were as follows:
| Three Months Ended
| March 30, 2024 |  | April 1, 2023
Operating lease cost | $ | 888 |  |  | $ | 1,069 |
Short-term lease cost(a) | 80 |  |  | 206 |
Financing lease cost: |  |  |
Amortization of finance lease assets | 158 |  |  | 235 |
Interest on lease liabilities | 221 |  |  | 137 |
Total lease cost | $ | 1,347 |  |  | $ | 1,647 |
(a)Includes variable lease cost and sublease income, which are immaterial. Supplemental cash flow information and non-cash activity related to leases were as follows:
| Three Months Ended
| March 30, 2024 |  | April 1, 2023
Cash paid for amounts included in measurement of lease liabilities: |  |  |
Operating cash flows from operating leases | $ | 1,178 |  |  | $ | 1,100 |
Operating cash flows from financing leases | $ | 221 |  |  | $ | 90 |
Financing cash flows from finance leases | $ | 183 |  |  | $ | 37 |
Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations: |  |  |
Operating lease obligations | $ | 95 |  |  | $ | 225 |
Financing lease obligations | $ | — |  |  | $ | 9,141 |
Supplemental balance sheet and other information related to leases were as follows:
| March 30, 2024 |  | December 31, 2023
Operating lease assets | $ | 12,462 |  | $ | 13,353
Operating lease liabilities—current | $ | 4,028 |  | $ | 4,057
Operating lease liabilities—noncurrent | 9,671 |  | 10,573
Total operating lease liabilities | $ | 13,699 |  | $ | 14,630
Property, plant and equipment, net (finance leases) | $ | 13,884 |  | $ | 14,279
Finance lease liabilities—current | $ | 778 |  | $ | 759
Finance lease liabilities—noncurrent | 10,184 |  | 10,386
Total financing lease liabilities | $ | 10,962 |  | $ | 11,145
Weighted average remaining lease term (years) for leases |  |  |
Operating leases | 3.6 |  | 3.8
Finance leases | 9.1 |  | 9.3
Weighted average discount rate for leases |  |  |
Operating leases | 4.7 | % |  | 4.7 | %
Finance leases | 8.1 | % |  | 8.1 | %
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 plaintiff’s amended consolidated complaint was filed with the Court on June 12, 2023. On July 17, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint raising a number of legal and factual deficiencies with the amended consolidated complaint. In response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 31, 2023. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 21, 2023, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on November 6, 2023. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Securities Act claims, but allowed the plaintiff’s Exchange Act claims to proceed into discovery. On October 4, 2023, certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a derivative shareholder lawsuit (in which the Company is a nominal defendant) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Grogan, on behalf of Bioventus Inc., v. Reali, et.al., No. 1:23-CV-01099-RGA (D. Del. 2023). The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties and related state law claims, and a claim for contribution, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On January 12, 2024, the Court agreed to stay this case pending resolution of the Ciarciello case. On February 9, 2024, another plaintiff filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers (in which the Company is a nominal defendant) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Sanderson, on behalf of Bioventus Inc., v. Reali, et.al., No. 1:24-cv-00180-RGA (D. Del. 2024). Like the Grogan case, this case asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties and related state law claims, and a claim for contribution, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On May 1, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate the two derivative matters and stay them on terms similar to those entered in the Grogan case. On May 2, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the stipulation and ordered the consolidation of the Sanderson and Grogan cases. The Company believes the claims alleged in each of the above matters lack merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The outcome of these matters is not presently determinable, and any loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable. Misonix former distributor litigation 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. On March 6, 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling affirming the lower Court’s summary judgment in favor of Misonix in all respects. Bioness stockholder litigation On February 8, 2022, a minority shareholder of Bioness filed an action in the Delaware State Court of Chancery in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Bioness, Teuza, a Fairchild Technology Venture Ltd. v. Lindon, et. al., No. 2022-0130 -SG. 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. 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 (the “Milestone Payment”) will be paid to the seller within five days. The Company is also required to pay royalties if certifications are achieved before December 31, 2024. Royalties will be payable through 2026 of 5.0% on the first $569 in sales and 2.5% thereafter. On March 8, 2023, the parties amended the agreement under which the Milestone Payment was reduced to $1,418, of which $709 was paid on January 31, 2024, and the remainder is due upon receipt of the Medical Device Regulation Certification for the product provided that it is obtained prior to December 31, 2024. As a result, the Company recorded an intellectual property intangible asset totaling $709 for initial payment. 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 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 March 30, 2024 and April 1, 2023 totaled $3,579 and $2,321, 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. From time to time, the Company causes 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 March 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the Company had three LOCs outstanding for $1,800. 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 $250 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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration