XML 37 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | (17) Commitments and Contingencies Indemnification In the normal course of business, we periodically enter into agreements to indemnify customers or suppliers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of our products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant, and we are unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on our future results of operations. To the extent permitted under Delaware law, we indemnify our directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is, or was, serving at our request in such capacity, subject to limited exceptions. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, we have directors and officers insurance coverage that may enable us 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. Litigation Export Controls and Government Contracts Compliance Matter In October 2017, we 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 our former Quickparts.com, Inc. subsidiary. In addition, while collecting information responsive to the above-referenced subpoena, our internal investigation identified potential violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State (“DDTC”) and potential violations of the Export Administration Regulations administered by the BIS. Thereafter, we submitted voluntary disclosures to BIS and DDTC identifying potentially unauthorized exports between 2012 and 2017, including to China, of controlled items including technical data. In connection with these matters, in August 2020, we received two federal grand jury subpoenas issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Company responded to these two subpoenas and fully cooperated with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ“) in the related investigation. During 2022, we engaged in discussions with DDTC, BIS, and DOJ to settle the potential export control violations described above. In February 2023, the Company settled these matters with all three agencies. As a part of these settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $15,048 in civil monetary penalties to these agencies, with an additional $10,000 in suspended penalty amounts to be allocated to remedial compliance measures required by DDTC. The penalty amounts were broken down as follows: DDTC $10,000 (in three installments over a three-year period), BIS $2,778, and DOJ $2,270. The first penalty installment payment to DDTC and the full penalty payments to BIS and to DOJ were made in the first quarter of 2023. To the extent any portion of the $10,000 suspended penalty is not expended on required remedial compliance measures by the end of the three-year term of the settlement agreement, then such shortfall shall be paid by the Company to DDTC. Accordingly, the $10,000 suspended penalty has not been recognized as a liability as of March 31, 2023 and will be recognized as incurred during the three-year term of the settlement agreement. The agencies are not criminally prosecuting the Company, nor anyone associated with the Company, and the Company is not subject to any administrative debarment. Over the course of our internal investigation, we made meaningful improvements to our compliance program and will continue to further enhance export compliance going forward. Shareholder Suits The Company and certain of its current and 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 Eastern District of New York (the “District Court”). The action is styled In re 3D Systems Securities Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-01920-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Securities Class Action”). On July 14, 2021, the Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff for the putative class and approved his choice of Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) on September 13, 2021, alleging that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions, and that the current and former executive officers named as defendants are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company’s Common Stock between May 6, 2020 and March 5, 2021, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendant moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on February 15, 2022, and the motion was fully briefed in May 2022. On October 28, 2022, the parties notified the District Court that they reached an agreement in principle resolving this action, and on December 19, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion seeking entry of an order preliminarily approving the settlement and establishing notice procedures. The settlement is subject to both preliminary and final approval by the District Court. On April 15, 2022, the Company was informed the SEC is conducting a formal investigation of the Company related to, among other things, the allegations in the Securities Class Action, and the Company received subpoenas from the SEC for the production of documents and information related to its investigation as a follow on to a previous voluntary request for documents. The Company is cooperating with the SEC. The Company has been named as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors have been named as defendants in derivative lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Circuit, York County, and the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. The actions are styled Nguyen v. Joshi, et al., No. 21-cv-03389-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Nguyen Action”), Lesar v. Graves, et al., No. 2021CP4602308 (S.C., Ct. of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Cir., Cty. of York) (the “Lesar Action”), Scanlon v. Graves, et al., No. 2021CP4602312 (S.C., Ct. of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Cir., Cty. of York) (the “Scanlon Action”), Bohus v. Joshi, et al., No. 22-cv-2203-CBA-RML (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Bohus Action”), and Fernicola v. Clinton, et. al., No. 512613/2022 (N.Y., Kings County Supreme Court) (the “Fernicola Action”). The Complaints in the Nguyen and Bohus Actions, which were filed on June 15, 2021 and April 18, 2022, respectively, assert breach of fiduciary duty claims against all defendants and claims for contribution under the federal securities laws against certain of the defendants. The Complaints in the Lesar and Scanlon Actions, which were filed on July 26, 2021, assert breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the defendants. The Complaint in the Fernicola Action was filed on May 2, 2022, and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets against the director defendants. On August 27, 2021, the Nguyen Action was stayed until 30 days after the earlier of: (i) the close of discovery in the Securities Class Action, or (ii) the deadline for appealing a dismissal of the Securities Class Action with prejudice. On October 26, 2021, the Lesar Action and the Scanlon Action were consolidated into a single stockholder derivative action, styled as In Re 3D Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2021CP4602308 (S.C., Ct. of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Cir., Cty. Of York) (the “South Carolina Derivative Action”). On March 3, 2022, the South Carolina Derivative Action was stayed until 30 days after the earlier of: (i) the close of discovery in the Securities Class Action, or (ii) the deadline for appealing a dismissal of the Securities Class Action with prejudice. On June 16, 2022, the Bohus Action was consolidated with the Nguyen Action (the “E.D.N.Y. Derivative Action”). The E.D.N.Y. Derivative Action is stayed until 30 days after the earlier of: (i) the close of discovery in the Securities Class Action, or (ii) the deadline for appealing a dismissal of the Securities Class Action with prejudice. On August 15, 2022, the Fernicola Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The Company believes the claims alleged in the putative securities class action and derivative lawsuits are without merit and the Company intends to defend itself and its current and former officers vigorously. Other We are involved in various other legal matters incidental to our business. Although we cannot predict the results of the litigation with certainty, we believe that the disposition of all these various other legal matters will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our consolidated results of operations, consolidated cash flows or consolidated financial position. In connection with the foregoing matters, we recognized a liability of $16,044 during the three months ended December 31, 2022, which includes the $10,000 DDTC civil monetary penalty being recognized at a discount using the risk-free interest rate. During the three months ended March 31, 2023, we paid $8,548 of this liability in accordance with the settlement agreements discussed above. Refer to Note 8 for details regarding our remaining short-term and long-term liabilities recorded for legal contingencies.

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