XML 32 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments And Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies The Company leases certain of its facilities and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. For the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2018, rent expense under operating leases was $3,788 and $12,288, respectively, compared to $4,009 and $11,461 for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively. Certain of the Company’s acquisition agreements contain earnout provisions under which the sellers of the acquired businesses can earn additional amounts. The total liability recorded for these earnouts at September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 was $1,073 and $5,115, respectively. See Note 5. Put Options Owners of interests in a certain subsidiary have the right in certain circumstances to require the Company to acquire either a portion of or all of the remaining ownership interests held by them. The owners’ ability to exercise any such “put option” right is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including conditions requiring notice in advance of exercise. In addition, these rights cannot be exercised prior to a specified exercise date. The exercise of these rights at their earliest contractual date would result in obligations of the Company to fund the related amounts in 2019. Management estimates, assuming that the subsidiary owned by the Company at September 30, 2018, performs over the relevant future periods at its forecasted earnings levels, that these rights, if exercised, could require the Company, in future periods, to pay approximately $8,872 to the owners of such rights to acquire such ownership interests in the relevant subsidiary. This amount has been recorded as redeemable noncontrolling interests on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017. The ultimate amount payable relating to this transaction will vary because it is dependent on the future results of operations of the subject business. Litigation Securities and Derivative Litigation The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the “Complaint”), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions and that the former officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On February 14, 2018, following mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement that provided for, among other things, payment of $50,000 by the Company’s insurance carriers and a mutual exchange of releases. The Stipulation of Settlement called for a dismissal of all claims against the Company and the individual defendants with prejudice following Court approval, a denial by defendants of any wrongdoing, and no admission of liability. On February 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On February 21, 2018, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. The Court held a final fairness hearing on June 25, 2018, and entered the Order and Final Judgment and Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees on the same day. The Company's insurance carriers have funded the entire settlement amount. The time for any party to appeal expired on July 25, 2018 and no appeals were filed. The matter is now concluded. At December 31, 2017 the Company's balance sheet reflected the entire settlement as a current liability with an offsetting receivable for related insurance proceeds. Nine related derivative complaints have been filed by purported Company stockholders against certain of the Company’s former executive officers and members of its Board of Directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in all nine actions. The derivative complaints are styled as follows: (1) Steyn v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225, filed on July 27, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina (“Steyn”); (2) Piguing v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2396, filed on August 7, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina (“Piguing”); (3) Booth v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-692-RGA, filed on August 6, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; (4) Nally v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-cv-03756-MGL, filed on September 18, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Nally”); (5) Gee v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC-610319, filed on February 17, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Gee”); (6) Foster v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01016-MGL, filed on April 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Foster”); (7) Lu v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC629730, filed on August 5, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Lu”); (8) Howes v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-2810-MGL, filed on August 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Howes”); and (9) Ameduri v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-02995-MGL, filed on September 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Ameduri”). Steyn and Piguing were consolidated into one action styled as In re 3D Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litig., Lead Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina. Gee and Lu were consolidated into one action styled as Gee v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC610319 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Nally, Foster, Howes, and Ameduri were consolidated into one action in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina with Nally as the lead consolidated case. The derivative complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment and seek, among other things, monetary damages and certain corporate governance actions. All of the derivative complaints listed above have been stayed. The Company believes the claims alleged in the derivative lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the Company and its officers and directors vigorously. Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, et. al. On August 23, 2013, Ronald Barranco, a former Company employee, filed two lawsuits against the Company and certain officers in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The first lawsuit (“Barranco I”) is captioned Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-411 LEK RLP, and alleges seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of Print3D Corporation (of which Mr. Barranco was a 50% shareholder) and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. The second lawsuit (“Barranco II”) is captioned Ronald Barranco v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., Abraham Reichental, and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-412 LEK RLP, and alleges the same seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of certain website domains from Barranco and the subsequent employment of Barranco by the Company. Both Barranco I and Barranco II allege the Company breached certain purchase agreements in order to avoid paying Barranco additional monies pursuant to royalty and earn out provisions in the agreements. The Company and its officers timely filed responsive pleadings on October 22, 2013 seeking, inter alia, to dismiss Barranco I due to a mandatory arbitration agreement and for lack of personal jurisdiction and to dismiss Barranco II for lack of personal jurisdiction. With regard to Barranco I, the Hawaii district court, on February 28, 2014, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer venue to South Carolina for the convenience of the parties. However, the Hawaii court recognized that the plaintiff’s claims are all subject to mandatory and binding arbitration in Charlotte, North Carolina. Because the Hawaii court was without authority to compel arbitration outside of Hawaii, the court ordered that the case be transferred to the district court encompassing Charlotte (the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina) so that court could compel arbitration in Charlotte. On April 17, 2014, Barranco I was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Barranco filed a demand for arbitration on October 29, 2014. On December 9, 2014, the Company filed its answer to Barranco’s demand for arbitration. On February 2, 2015, Barranco filed an amended demand that removed Mr. Gregoire as a defendant from the matter, and on February 4, 2015 the Company filed its amended answer. The parties selected an arbitrator and arbitration took place in September 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina. On September 28, 2015, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Barranco with respect to two alleged breaches of contract and implied covenants arising out of the contract. The arbitrator found that the Company did not commit fraud or make any negligent misrepresentations to Barranco. Pursuant to the award, the Company was directed to pay approximately $11,282, which includes alleged actual damages of $7,254, fees and expenses of $2,318 and prejudgment interest of $1,710. The Company disagrees with the single arbitrator’s findings and conclusions and believes the arbitrator’s decision exceeds his authority and disregards the applicable law. As an initial response, the Company filed a motion for modification on September 30, 2015, based on mathematical errors in the computation of damages and fees. On October 16, 2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Company’s motion and sua sponte issuing a modified final award in favor of Barranco in the same above-referenced amounts, but making certain substantive changes to the award, which changes the Company believes were improper and outside the scope of his authority and the American Arbitration Association rules. On November 20, 2015, the Company filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award in the federal court in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Claimants also filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award. A hearing was held on the motions on September 29, 2016 in federal court in the Western District of North Carolina. The court requested supplemental briefing by the parties, which briefs were filed on July 11, 2016. On August 31, 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Barranco’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and for judgment, entering judgment in the principal amount of the arbitration award and denying Barranco’s motion for fees and costs. The court denied the Company’s motion to vacate. On September 7, 2016, Barranco filed a motion to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest. The Company opposed that motion and the parties submitted briefing. On September 28, 2016 the Company filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Barranco opposed the motion and the parties submitted briefing. On May 18, 2017, the court issued an opinion and order denying the Company’s motion to alter or amend and denying Barranco’s motion for prejudgment interest. On September 16, 2017, the Company filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Company filed its Opening Brief and the Joint Appendix on August 28, 2017. Barranco filed its Opening Brief on September 11, 2017. The Company filed its Reply Brief on September 25, 2017. On May 31, 2018, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision by unpublished per curiam opinion. On June 14, 2018, the Company timely filed Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. On June 15, 2018 the Fourth Circuit issued a Stay of Mandate Under Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(1). The Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc was subsequently denied and on August 1, 2018, the Fourth Circuit issued its mandate, thereby returning jurisdiction to the District Court and ending the stay. On August 2, 2018, the Company filed its Motion for Setoff of Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Setoff of Judgment. Barranco filed a response agreeing that setoff was appropriate, but contested the amount. On August 3, 2018, the Company paid $9,127 of the Judgment, net setoff. On August 7, 2018, Barranco filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Surety Liability Against Berkley Insurance Co. ("Berkley") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Barranco v. Berkley Insurance Co., Misc. Case No. 4:18-mc-80131-PJH, seeking entry of an order directing Berkley to pay Barranco $1,720, which was the portion of the Requested Setoff that Barranco disputed. On September 5, 2018, Berkley filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in the California Action, seeking dismissal and/or transfer of the Surety Motion to the North Carolina Action. On September 28, 2018, the parties filed a Consent Stipulation Resolving Motion for Setoff of Judgment, stipulating that subject only to vacatur or amendment reducing the Amended 3D Systems Judgment in Barranco’s appeal to the 9th Circuit of the Hawaii action discussed below, the Amended 3D Systems Judgment in the amount of $2,182 was setoff against the Barranco Judgment (“Stipulated Setoff”). The Stipulated Setoff was deemed to resolve the North Carolina Setoff Motion and the California Surety Motion. On September 28, Barranco withdrew the California Surety Motion, which was rendered moot by the agreed setoff made under the provisions of this Stipulation. On October 1, 2018, Berkley withdrew its Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue pending in the California Action. The Company paid Barranco the $101 balance remaining due on the North Carolina Judgment after the Stipulated Setoff. With regard to Barranco II, the Hawaii district court, on March 17, 2014, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer venue to South Carolina. However, the Hawaii court dismissed Count II in Barranco’s complaint alleging breach of the employment agreement. The Company filed an answer to the complaint in the Hawaii district court on March 31, 2014. On November 19, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims which was heard on January 20, 2015. On January 30, 2015, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The Order narrowed Barranco's claim for breach of contract and dismissed the claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. As a result, Messrs. Reichental and Gregoire were dismissed from the lawsuit. The case was tried to a jury in May 2016, and on May 27, 2016 the jury found that the Company was not liable for either breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, the jury found in favor of the Company on its counterclaim against Barranco and determined that Barranco violated his non-competition covenant with the Company. On July 5, 2017, the Court ordered a bench trial regarding causation and damages with respect to the equitable accounting on the Company’s prevailing counterclaim against Barranco. The bench trial took place on November 20, 2017. The Court ordered the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Company submitted its proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on January 12, 2018. Barranco submitted his proposed findings on February 2, 2018. The Company submitted its Reply on February 16, 2018. On March 30, 2018, the Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order requiring Barranco to disgorge, and the Company recover, $523, representing all but four months of the full amount paid to Barranco as salary during his employment with the Company as well as a portion of the up front and buyout payments made to Barranco in connection with the purchase of certain web domains. In addition, the Court ordered Barranco to pay pre-judgment interest to the Company to be calculated beginning as of his first breach of the non-competition covenant in August 2011. Judgment entered thereafter on April 2, 2018. As the prevailing party, the Company moved for recovery of its fees and costs. On June 15, 2018, the federal magistrate judge entered Findings and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendants 3D Systems Corporation and 3D System Inc.’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, whereby it recommended that 3D Systems be awarded $1,299 in attorneys’ fees, $349 for the amount of the prejudgment interest, and $72 in non-taxable costs. On April 19, 2018, Barranco filed a post-trial motion seeking to amend the findings and judgment. The Company opposed that motion. On April 30, 2018, Barranco filed a combined Rule 50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Company’s counterclaim and Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial. The Company also opposed that Motion. On June 29, 2018, Barranco filed partial objections to the Fee Award Report and Recommendation. On July 9, 2018, the Company filed its Response opposing those partial objections. All post-trial motions are currently pending before the Court. On May 10, 2018, the Company put Barranco on notice that it intended to exercise its right of setoff in regard to any liability it may be determined to have to Barranco. More specifically, the Company notified Barranco that it intended to set off the amounts determined due to it in the Hawaii litigation against any liability 3D Systems was determined to have in the North Carolina arbitration on appeal. As discussed above, the Company filed a Motion and Memo for Setoff on August 2, 2018 with the North Carolina court and exercised its right of setoff on August 3, 2018. On September 5, 2018, Barranco filed a Notice of Appeal of the Hawaii Action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 13, 2018, the Hawaii District Court entered its Amended Judgment in a Civil Case, awarding 3D Systems a final amended judgment of $2,182. On September 19, 2018, Barranco filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. The Setoff Motion was resolved by consent stipulation on September 28 as discussed above. Appellants’ opening brief is due December 14. Appellee’s Answering Brief is due January 14. The Company intends to defend the appeal vigorously. Export Controls and Government Contracts Compliance Matter In October 2017 the Company received an administrative subpoena from the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce (“BIS”) requesting the production of records in connection with possible violations of U.S. export control laws, including with regard to its Quickparts.com, Inc. subsidiary. In addition, while collecting information responsive to the above referenced subpoena, the Company identified potential violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State (“DDTC”) and potential violations of the Export Administration Regulations administered by BIS. On June 8, 2018, the Company submitted voluntary disclosures to BIS and DDTC identifying numerous potentially unauthorized exports of technical data, which supplemented an initial notice of voluntary disclosure that the Company submitted to DDTC in February 2018. The Company is conducting an internal review of its export control, trade sanctions, and government contracting compliance risks and potential violations; implementing associated compliance enhancements; and cooperating with DDTC and BIS, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate resolution of these matters, the Company expects to incur significant legal costs and other expenses in connection with responding to the U.S. government agencies. Throughout 2018, the Company has implemented and will continue to implement new compliance procedures to identify and prevent potential violations of export control laws, trade sanctions, and government contracting laws. As a result of these compliance enhancements, the Company has identified additional potential violations of the ITAR, and has submitted related voluntary disclosures to DDTC. As the Company continues to implement additional compliance enhancements, it may discover potential violations of export control laws, trade sanctions, and/or government contracting laws in the future, which may require disclosure to relevant agencies. If the Company identifies any additional potential violations, the Company will submit voluntary disclosures to the relevant agencies and cooperate with such agencies on any related investigations. If the U.S. government finds that the Company has violated one or more export control laws, trade sanctions, or government contracting laws, the Company could be subject to various civil or criminal penalties. By statute, these penalties can include but are not limited to fines, which by statute may be significant, denial of export privileges, and suspension or debarment from participation in U.S. government contracts. The Company may also be subject to contract claims based upon such violations. Any assessment of penalties or other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters could harm the Company’s reputation and customer relationships, create negative investor sentiment, and affect the Company’s share value. In connection with any resolution, the Company may also be required to undertake additional remedial compliance measures and program monitoring. The Company cannot at this time predict when the U.S. government agencies will conclude their investigations or determine an estimated cost, if any, or range of costs, for any penalties, fines or other liabilities to third parties that may be incurred in connection with these matters. Indemnification In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements to indemnify customers or suppliers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company’s products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant, and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on its future results of operations. To the extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company indemnifies its directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity, subject to limited exceptions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has directors and officers insurance coverage that may enable the Company to recover future amounts paid, subject to a deductible and the policy limits. There is no assurance that the policy limits will be sufficient to cover all damages, if any.

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