Contractual Commitments and Contingencies

Contractual Commitments

In addition to the Capital Leases noted above in Note 5, the Company has entered into operating lease agreements for facility space and equipment. These leases expire over the next six years and generally contain renewal options. The Company anticipates that most of these leases will be renewed or replaced upon expiration. The Company also has commitments to various charitable organizations that continue over the next twelve months. The estimated annual lease payments and charitable organization commitments are as follows:



12-month period ended June 30
2015	$	1,534,225
2016	1,469,720
2017	1,512,893
2018	1,491,300
2019	837,069
	$	6,845,207

Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 was approximately $564,000 and $398,000, respectively and was $282,000 and $285,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and is allocated among cost of sales, research and development, and selling, general and administrative expenses.

Letters of Credit

As a condition of the leases for the Company's facilities, the Company is obligated under standby letters of credit in the amount of approximately $525,000. These obligations are reduced at various times over the lives of the leases.

FDA Untitled Letter and Related Litigation

Initially, MiMedx processed its tissue allografts in only one form, which was a sheet form. In 2011, MiMedx introduced a micronized form of its sheet allografts.

The FDA has specific regulations governing human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps. An HCT/P is a product containing or consisting of human cells or tissue intended for transplantation into a human patient. If an HCT/P meets the criteria for regulation solely under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (so-called “361 HCT/Ps”), no FDA review for safety and effectiveness under a drug, device, or biological product marketing application is required.

MiMedx believes that all of its tissue products qualify as 361 HCT/Ps. On August 28, 2013, however, the FDA issued an Untitled Letter alleging that the Company’s micronized allografts do not meet the criteria for regulation solely under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and that, as a result, MiMedx would need a biologics license to lawfully market the micronized products.

After a series of correspondence and conference calls and a meeting with FDA representatives, in December 2013, the FDA clarified the basis for its position regarding the micronized products. Specifically, the FDA explained its belief that “[c]ryo-milling cut, dehydrated amniotic/chorionic membrane results in a micron-sized powder and the loss of the tensile strength and elasticity that are essential characteristics of the original amniotic/chorionic tissue relating to its utility to function as a ‘physical membrane’ (i.e. covering, barrier).” For this reason, the Agency continues to believe that the micronized products are more than minimally manipulated and the products therefore are not eligible for marketing solely under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act. The Company responded to the FDA that while it does not agree with the Agency’s position, it understands the Agency’s interest in further regulating this emerging technology. Accordingly, the Company has proposed to the FDA that it will pursue the Investigational New Drug (“IND”) and Biologics License Application (“BLA”) process for certain micronized products, and, in parallel, also proposed to enter into negotiations with the FDA on a plan to transition the micronized products to licensed biological products and continue to market the micronized products under specific conditions. Since December 2013, the Company met and had several other interactions with the FDA to discuss its first proposed Biologics License Application and in preparation for its first IND in support of that application. The Company filed its initial IND application with the FDA on July 22, 2014. The IND submission is the Company's initial submission for certain indications for use of its micronized allografts towards targeted BLAs, which the Company expects to submit at a future date. The Company also requested a transition agreement to allow it continue to market its product for certain specified uses. There is no guarantee that the FDA will agree to a transition plan or allow the Company to continue to market its micronized products while the Company pursues one or more BLAs. If they do allow the Company to continue to market its micronized products, they may impose conditions, such as labeling restrictions and compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”). It is also possible that the Company will be required to recall its micronized products. Revenues from micronized products make up about 15% of projected revenues in 2014.

Following the publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA regarding the Company’s injectable products in September 2013, the trading price of the Company’s stock dropped sharply and several purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of the Company's executive officers asserting violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to various statements and alleged omissions related to the Company’s belief that FDA approval was not required to market its products, including its micronized products. These cases have now all been removed to, and consolidated in, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. By order dated December 9, 2013, the Court approved the appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, containing substantially the same causes of action and claims for relief as the initial complaints, was filed on January 27, 2014. On February 26, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on various grounds. The plaintiff filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in opposition to the Company’s Motion to Dismiss on March 28, 2014. On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in further support of its Motion to Dismiss. The Company currently believes that the outcome of this litigation will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or results of operations.