Commitments and Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2019
|Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies
On June 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action no. 19CV1079 LAB NLS) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, certain current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Company’s IPO. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions in the Company’s registration statement that caused the stock price to drop. The court appointed a Lead Plaintiff on September 5, 2019, and on October 2, 2019, it ordered that Lead Plaintiff file an amended complaint within forty-five days after the Company files with the SEC its Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2019. Management intends to vigorously defend the Company against this lawsuit. At this time, the Company cannot predict how a court or jury will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should the Company ultimately be found liable, the liability could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and our results of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome.
On October 1, 2019, a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Noel Borg v. Dean Irwin, et. al (Civil Action no. 1:99-cm-09999) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against certain current and former officers and directors, purportedly on behalf of the Company, which is named as a nominal defendant in the action. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On October 21, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court stayed the derivative lawsuit until the related class action is resolved.
As previously announced in the Form 8-K filed on August 12, 2019, the Audit Committee of Ra Medical’s Board of Directors (the “Audit Committee”) was conducting an investigation of certain allegations raised by a former employee. The Company announced the Audit Committee’s findings in the Form 8-K filed on October 31, 2019. The primary investigative findings were: (i) the DABRA catheter frequently failed to calibrate and occasionally overheated, posing a risk of injury to physicians and patients; (ii) our explanations regarding our fourth quarter 2018 and first quarter 2019 sales created a risk of confusion because they did not explicitly reference inconsistent DABRA catheter performance and catheter failures; (iii) we failed to timely make at least two Medical Device Reports, or MDRs, to the FDA; (iv) we, out of a concern for the DABRA catheters’ performance, engaged in systematic efforts to replace product held by customers, which constituted product recalls, but were not documented as such, (v) we lack documentation of sufficient detail and specificity to support certain payments to physicians, ostensibly for training and consulting services, and as to three physicians did not accurately reflect the purpose and nature of approximately $300,000 of payments, which could be perceived as an improper attempt to obtain business or to gain special advantage, (vi) while the indication for use in the 510(k) clearance we obtained for the DABRA system is not for atherectomy, our salespeople were instructed to characterize DABRA as performing atherectomy and to encourage doctors to seek reimbursement using atherectomy codes, (vii) our determinations to direct potentially valuable benefits and opportunities to doctors were informed in part by sales prospects, and (viii) we received complaints regarding regulatory or compliance concerns that, because they implicated executive officers, should have been brought to the attention of the Board or the Audit Committee, but were not.
The Audit Committee, in reviewing the allegations, identified certain behavior inconsistent with our Code of Ethics and Conduct and related policies.
As also previously announced, the Company voluntarily contacted the SEC’s Enforcement Division regarding the Audit Committee’s investigation and remains in discussion with such Agency.
In October 2019, the Department of Justice, or DOJ, served the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand seeking information with respect to a False Claims Act investigation concerning whether the Company fraudulently obtained 510(k) marketing clearance for the Company’s devices marketed under the trade name DABRA, whether the Company marketed and promoted DABRA devices for unapproved uses that were not covered by federal healthcare programs, and whether the Company paid improper remuneration to physicians and other healthcare providers in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. §1320a-7b. In response to the DOJ’s CID, the Company reviewed the facts and circumstances of the clinical study used to support its 510(k) marketing clearance and has now completed such review. Following this review, the Company believes there is (i) adequate evidence to support the safety and efficacy reported in the study submitted with the 510(k) application, and (ii) no observations that would have a major impact on the reported results of the study. The Company is cooperating fully with the DOJ’s request in connection with the Civil Investigative Demand. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome.
The Company received a letter on November 13, 2019, from the Los Angeles Office of the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), in which the SEC notified the Company that it is conducting an investigation. The Company has been, and intends to continue, cooperating with the SEC in this investigation. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome.
On November 21, 2019, we became aware that the Criminal Division, Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice has an open investigation related to the Company. At this time, it is unclear if the Company is a target in this investigation. The Company intends to cooperate with the DOJ criminal investigation.
On August 30, 2018, Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. (“Strata”) and Uri Geiger, a member of the board of directors of Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. filed an action against the Company in Pennsylvania State Court, Montgomery County (Civil Action No. 18-21421) (the “Pennsylvania Case”), requesting declaratory relief that: (1) Strata and Mr. Geiger are not liable for tortious interference, defamation, libel, or unfair competition based on an e-mail by Mr. Geiger to an investment bank (the “Geiger Email”); (2) Strata and Mr. Geiger made no actionable statements about the Company to such investment bank; (3) the Company cannot enforce the 2011 settlement and release agreement between the Company and PhotoMedex, Inc. (“Settlement Agreement”) against Strata; and (4) that any dispute regarding the Geiger Email does not relate to the Settlement Agreement. The action filed by Strata and Mr. Geiger does not request any monetary damages. The Company believes that the action by Strata and Mr. Geiger was filed as a response to a letter that the Company sent to Strata on August 22, 2018 demanding that Strata and Mr. Geiger cease and desist from making statements about alleged patent infringement and affirmatively retract the statements made in the Geiger Email. The Company was served with the action on August 31, 2018, and responded with preliminary objections to the action on September 19, 2018. The court overruled the Company’s preliminary arguments on April 29, 2019. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on July 17, 2019 for the court to rule that the Company can enforce the Settlement Agreement against Strata. The Company believes that Strata’s action in the Pennsylvania Case lacks merit, and plans to vigorously oppose the action on procedural and substantive grounds within the prescribed time limits. No loss is probable or reasonably possible as of June 30, 2019.
On May 16, 2019, the Company filed an action against Strata, Mr. Geiger and Accelmed Growth Partners, L.P. and its affiliates (collectively, the “Strata Parties”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Civil Action No. 19-cv-0920-AJB-MSB (the “California Case”)) alleging (1) violation of the Settlement Agreement, (2) tortious interference with economic advantage, and (3) trade libel based on the Geiger Email. In the lawsuit, the Company alleges, among other things, that the statements in the Geiger Email regarding alleged patent infringement constitute a breach of the Settlement Agreement, that the Strata Parties employed deceptive practices designed to delay the Company’s initial public offering and reduce the amount of capital raised by the Company, and that statements in the Geiger Email regarding patent infringement, off label promotion and reimbursement constitute trade libel. The Company seeks an injunction barring the Strata Parties’ alleged conduct, monetary damages, and other available legal and equitable relief. The Company amended its complaint on July 25, 2019 to allege violations of the Lanham Act’s prohibition on false advertising. The Strata Parties filed motions to dismiss on August 25, 2019, and the Company responded with its oppositions to the motions to discuss on September 27, 2019. The Court has set a hearing date of December 19, 2019 on the motions to dismiss.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef