XML 83 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

During the first quarter of 2008, the Company entered into a lease agreement and sublease agreement in order to consolidate the use and occupation of its then existing premises into two adjacent facilities, as described below. The Company also leases certain equipment and vehicles under operating leases which expire on various dates through 2017, and certain equipment under capital leases which expire on various dates through 2017.

In February 2008, the Company entered into a sublease agreement (the “Sublease”), for office, engineering, and research and development space. The Sublease term commenced May 2008 and ends on January 31, 2016. The Company is obligated under the Sublease to pay base rent and certain operating costs and taxes for the building. Monthly base rent payable by the Company was approximately $80,500 during the first year of the Sublease, increasing annually at a fixed annual rate of 2.5% to approximately $93,500 per month in the final year of the Sublease. The Company’s rent was abated for months one through seven of the Sublease. At the sublease inception, the Company paid a security deposit in the amount of approximately $93,500.

In March 2008, the Company entered into a lease agreement (the “Lease”) for additional office, engineering, research and development and warehouse and distribution space. The Lease term commenced on December 1, 2008 and ends on January 31, 2017. The Company is obligated under the Lease to pay base rent and certain operating costs and taxes for the building. The monthly base rent payable by the Company was approximately $73,500 during the first year of the Lease, increasing annually at a fixed annual rate of 3.0% to approximately $93,000 per month in the final year of the Lease. The Company’s rent was abated for the months two through eight of the term of the Lease in the amount of $38,480. At the lease inception, the Company paid a security deposit in the amount of approximately $293,200 consisting of cash and two letters of credit. Following the Company’s achievement of certain financial milestones, the lessor is obligated to return a portion of the security deposit to the Company. The lessor provided a tenant improvement allowance of $1.1 million to assist with the configuration of the facility to meet the Company’s business needs.

Scient’x leases office and manufacturing warehouse and distribution space in Beaurains, France. The lease term commenced in December 2002 and ends in December 2013. The monthly base rent payable by Scient’x is approximately $40,000 per month, which increases annually with the cost of inflation in France.

Future minimum annual lease payments under the Company’s operating and capital leases are as follows (in thousands):

 

Year ending December 31,

   Operating      Capital  

2013

   $ 3,684       $ 558   

2014

     2,735         527   

2015

     2,432         466   

2016

     1,286         423  

2017

     180         82  

Thereafter

     271         —    
  

 

 

    

 

 

 
   $ 10,588         2,056   
  

 

 

    

Less: amount representing interest

        (286
     

 

 

 

Present value of minimum lease payments

        1,770   

Current portion of capital leases

        437   
     

 

 

 

Capital leases, less current portion

      $ 1,333   
     

 

 

 

Rent expense under operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 was $3.7 million, $3.7 million and $3.2 million, respectively.

 

Litigation

In 1998, Eurosurgical, a French company in the business of sales and marketing of spinal implants, entered into a distribution agreement for the United States, Mexico, Canada, India and Australia with Orthotec, LLC, a California company, or Orthotec. In 2004, Orthotec sued Eurosurgical in connection with a contractual dispute and a $9 million judgment was entered against Eurosurgical by a California court in 2006. In 2007, a federal court in California declared Eurosurgical liable to Orthotec for $30 million in connection with an intellectual property dispute. In 2006, Eurosurgical’s European assets were ultimately acquired by Surgiview, SAS, or Surgiview, in a sale agreement approved by a French court. Pursuant to this sale, Surgiview became a subsidiary of Scient’x in 2006. Orthotec attempted to recover on Eurosurgical’s obligations by filing a motion in a California court to add Surgiview to the judgment against Eurosurgical on theories including successor liability and fraudulent conveyance. In February 2007, the California court denied Orthotec’s motion, indicating that Orthotec had not carried its burdens of proof. Orthotec chose to not proceed with a further hearing in September 2007.

In May 2008, after the acquisition of Scient’x by HealthpointCapital in 2007, Orthotec sued Scient’x, Surgiview, HealthpointCapital and certain former directors of Scient’x (who also serve on the Company’s board) in a new action in California state court in which it sought, among other things, to have the defendant’s bear responsibility for the $39 million in judgments that had been assessed against Eurosurgical. In April 2009, the California court dismissed this matter on jurisdictional grounds, and Orthotec appealed the ruling. In December 2010, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision that affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s decision dismissing the entire California action based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Orthotec failed to establish personal jurisdiction over all parties except Surgiview, finding that the trial court could exercise jurisdiction over that entity. In January 2012, OrthoTec amended its complaint and added the Company as a defendant to the California matter. Alphatec filed a motion for summary judgment in November 2012 that is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision. The case is currently scheduled for trial in March 2013.

In addition, also in May 2008, a similar action was filed in New York against HealthpointCapital, Scient’x and two former directors of Scient’x (who also serve on the Company’s board), in which Orthotec sought, among other things, to have the defendant’s bear responsibility for the $39 million in judgments that had been assessed against Eurosurgical. In July 2009, Orthotec voluntarily dismissed Scient’x from the action. In November 2009, the court dismissed Orthotec’s claims based on collateral estoppel, and Orthotec appealed this ruling. In March 2011, the state appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Orthotec’s claims. The New York matter then proceeded with discovery, and the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2012, which is currently being briefed by the parties. Additionally, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss one of the plaintiff’s claims based upon Orthotec’s spoliation of evidence, which motion was denied, and that denial is currently on appeal. Since March 2010 the Company has been indemnifying HealthpointCapital and the two former directors of Scient’x in connection with the New York matter.

While the Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions, and believes that the plaintiff’s allegations are without merit, the outcome of the litigations cannot be predicted at this time and any outcome in favor of Orthotec, regardless of who the defendant is, could have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

On August 25, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company’s filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, purporting to assert claims on behalf of the Company against all of its directors and certain of its officers and HealthpointCapital. Following the filing of this complaint, similar complaints were filed in the same court and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the same defendants containing similar allegations. The complaint filed in federal court was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice in July 2011. The state court complaints have been consolidated into a single action. The Company has been named as a nominal defendant in the consolidated action. Each complaint alleges that the Company’s directors and certain of its officers breached their fiduciary duties to the Company related to the Scient’x transaction, and by making allegedly false statements that led to unjust enrichment of HealthpointCapital and certain of the Company’s directors. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and an order directing the Company to adopt certain measures purportedly designed to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. This consolidated lawsuit has been stayed by order of the court until May 10, 2013. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these complaints; however no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of this lawsuit.

At December 31, 2012, the probable outcome of any of the aforementioned litigation matters cannot be determined nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. Accordingly, in accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to these litigation matters. The Company is and may become involved in various other legal proceedings arising from its business activities. While management does not believe the ultimate disposition of these matters will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and depending on the nature and timing of these proceedings, an unfavorable resolution could materially affect the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period.

Royalties

The Company has entered into various intellectual property agreements requiring the payment of royalties based on the sale of products that utilize such intellectual property. These royalties primarily relate to products sold by Alphatec Spine and are calculated either as a percentage of net sales or in one instance on a per-unit sold basis. Royalties are included on the accompanying consolidated statement of operations as a component of cost of revenues.