Commitments and Contingencies
|9 Months Ended|
Sep. 30, 2020
|Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies
Legal—In the normal course of business, the Company is at times subject to pending and threatened legal actions. In management’s opinion, any potential loss resulting from the resolution of these matters will not have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company.
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. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and the filing of a subsequent amended complaint, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions in the Company’s registration statement in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between September 27, 2018 and November 27, 2019, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Management intends to vigorously defend the Company against this lawsuit. On March 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter defendants without prejudice. On March 13, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 14, 2020, the court informed the parties that the motion to dismiss is suitable for decision without oral argument. 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 the Company’s financial condition and its 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. While the Company has obligations to indemnify and/or advance the defendants’ legal fees and costs in connection with this lawsuit, any monetary recovery from the defendants would be to the benefit of the Company.
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.
As previously announced in the Form 8-K filed on August 12, 2019, the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Audit Committee”) conducted 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) the Company’s explanations regarding its 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) the Company failed to timely make at least two Medical Device Reports, or MDRs, to the FDA; (iv) the Company, 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) the Company 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 the Company obtained for the DABRA system is not for atherectomy, the Company’s salespeople were instructed to characterize DABRA as performing atherectomy and to encourage doctors to seek reimbursement using atherectomy codes, (vii) the Company’s determinations to direct potentially valuable benefits and opportunities to doctors were informed in part by sales prospects, and (viii) the Company 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 the Company’s Code of Ethics and Conduct and related policies.
As also previously announced, the Company voluntarily contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) Enforcement Division regarding the Audit Committee’s investigation. On November 13, 2019, 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 active and ongoing 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.
In October 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, served the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) 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. The Company believes as many as 13 states are participating in the DOJ’s False Claims Act investigation. 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 has been, and intends to continue, cooperating with the DOJ in its active and ongoing investigation. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and has accrued $2.7 million at September 30, 2020 related to this contingency. It is reasonably possible that the estimated amount will change.
On November 21, 2019, the Company became aware that the Criminal Division, Fraud Section of the DOJ 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 has been, and intends to continue, cooperating with the DOJ in its active and ongoing 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 August 30, 2018, Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. (“Strata”) and Uri Geiger, a member of the board of directors of Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. (collectively “Strata”) filed an action against the Company in Court of Common Pleas of, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (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.
On May 16, 2019, the Company filed an action against Strata, Mr. Geiger and Accelmed Growth Partners, L.P. (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) breach of the Settlement Agreement, (2) intentional interference in contractual relations, (3) intentional interference in prospective economic relations, and (4) trade libel. In the California Case, 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.
On August 11, 2020, the Company and the Strata Parties executed a settlement agreement, dated as of August 6, 2020, that includes a mutual release of claims and an agreement to terminate the Pennsylvania Case and the California Case.
On February 12, 2020, Dean Irwin, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, filed a Demand for Arbitration, alleging that the Company attempted to coerce him into signing a non-standard separation agreement and release of claims, contrary to the terms of his Severance Agreement. Mr. Irwin claims that he was willing to sign the Company’s standard separation agreement and release of claims. Based on this allegation, Mr. Irwin is claiming nonpayment of wages, penalties for nonpayment of wages, failure to provide wage statements, breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company believes that Mr. Irwin’s allegations lack merit, and plans to vigorously defend the action.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef