Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies FDA Warning Letter On December 29, 2015, the FDA issued a Warning Letter alleging certain violations of FDA regulations applicable to medical device manufacturers at our Munich, Germany and Arvada, Colorado facilities. The FDA inspected the Munich facility from August 24, 2015 to August 27, 2015 and the Arvada facility from August 24, 2015 to September 1, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the FDA issued a Form 483 identifying two observed non-conformities with certain regulatory requirements at the Munich facility. We did not receive a Form 483 in connection with the FDA’s inspection of the Arvada facility. Following the receipt of the Form 483, we provided written responses to the FDA describing corrective and preventive actions that were underway or to be taken to address the FDA’s observations at the Munich facility. The Warning Letter responded in part to our responses and identified other alleged violations related to the manufacture of our 3T device that were not previously included in the Form 483. The Warning Letter further stated that our 3T devices and other devices we manufactured at our Munich facility are subject to refusal of admission into the U.S. until resolution of the issues set forth by the FDA in the Warning Letter. The FDA has informed us that the import alert is limited to the 3T devices, but that the agency reserves the right to expand the scope of the import alert if future circumstances warrant such action. The Warning Letter did not request that existing users cease using the 3T device, and manufacturing and shipment of all of our products other than the 3T device remain unaffected by the import limitation. To help clarify these issues for current customers, we issued an informational Customer Letter in January 2016 and that same month agreed with the FDA on a process for shipping 3T devices to existing U.S. users pursuant to a certificate of medical necessity program. Finally, the Warning Letter stated that premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which certain Quality System regulation deviations identified in the Warning Letter are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected; however, this restriction applies only to the Munich and Arvada facilities, which do not manufacture or design devices subject to Class III premarket approval. We continue to work diligently to remediate the FDA’s inspectional observations for the Munich facility, as well as the additional issues identified in the Warning Letter. We take these matters seriously and intend to respond timely and fully to the FDA’s requests. CDC and FDA Safety Communications and Company Field Safety Notice Update On October 13, 2016, the CDC and the FDA separately released safety notifications regarding the 3T devices. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (“MMWR”) and Health Advisory Notice (“HAN”) reported that tests conducted by CDC and its affiliates indicate that there appears to be genetic similarity between both patient and 3T device strains of the non-tuberculous mycobacterium (“NTM”) bacteria M. chimaera isolated in hospitals in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Citing the geographic separation between the two hospitals referenced in the investigation, the report asserts that 3T devices manufactured prior to August 18, 2014 could have been contaminated during the manufacturing process. The CDC’s HAN and FDA’s Safety Communication, issued contemporaneously with the MMWR report, each assess certain risks associated with 3T devices and provide guidance for providers and patients. The CDC notification states that the decision to use the 3T device during a surgical operation is to be taken by the surgeon based on a risk approach and on patient need. Both the CDC’s and FDA’s communications confirm that 3T devices are critical medical devices and enable doctors to perform life-saving cardiac surgery procedures. Also on October 13, 2016, in response to the Warning Letter and CDC’s HAN and FDA’s Safety Communication, we issued a Field Safety Notice Update for U.S. users of 3T devices to proactively and voluntarily contact facilities to aid in implementation of the CDC and FDA recommendations. In the fourth quarter of 2016, we initiated a program to provide existing 3T device users with a new loaner 3T device at no charge pending regulatory approval and implementation of additional risk mitigation strategies worldwide, including a vacuum canister and internal sealing upgrade program and a deep disinfection service. This loaner program began in the U.S. and is being made available progressively on a global basis, prioritizing and allocating devices to 3T device users based on pre-established criteria. We anticipate that this program will continue until we are able to address customer needs through a broader solution that includes implementation of the risk mitigation strategies described above. We are currently implementing the vacuum and sealing upgrade program in as many countries as possible until all devices are upgraded. On October 11, 2018, after review of information provided by LivaNova, the FDA concluded that LivaNova could commence the vacuum and sealing upgrade program in the U.S. Furthermore, we continue to offer a no-charge deep disinfection service (deep cleaning service) for 3T device users as we receive the required regulatory approvals. On April 12, 2018, the FDA agreed to allow us to move forward with the deep cleaning service in the U.S. adding to the growing list of countries around the world in which we offer this service. On December 31, 2016, we recognized a liability for our product remediation plan related to our 3T device. We concluded that it was probable that a liability had been incurred upon management’s approval of the plan and the commitments made by management to various regulatory authorities globally in November and December 2016, and furthermore, the cost associated with the plan was reasonably estimable. At September 30, 2018, the product remediation liability was $17.9 million. Refer to “Note 6. Product Remediation Liability” for additional information. Litigation Product Liability The Company is currently involved in litigation involving our 3T device. The litigation includes a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S. As of October 31, 2018, we are involved in approximately 150 claims worldwide, with the majority of the claims in various federal or state courts throughout the United States. The complaints generally seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer protection statutes. The class action, filed in February 2016, consists of all Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between 2011 and 2015 and who currently are asymptomatic for NTM infection. Members of the class seek declaratory relief that the 3T devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses, medical monitoring, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The class action and cases in federal court have been stayed as a result of the federal multi-district litigation. However, cases in state courts in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside the U.S continue to progress. We have not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from these matters. Civil Investigative Demand On May 31, 2017, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia. The CID requested, and we have provided, certain documents relating to the sales and marketing of VNS devices and related products in the State of Georgia. On October 25, 2018, without an admission of guilt, we entered into a settlement agreement with the US Department of Justice, the State of Georgia, and a former Company employee, and agreed to pay approximately $1.9 million. Accordingly, during the three months ended September 30, 2018 we recognized $1.9 million in selling, general and administrative expenses reflecting settlement of this matter. Environmental Liability SNIA Litigation Our subsidiary, Sorin S.p.A. (“Sorin”) was created as a result of a spin-off (the “Sorin spin-off”) from SNIA S.p.A. (“SNIA”) in January, 2004. SNIA subsequently became insolvent and the Italian Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of Land and Sea (the “Italian Ministry of the Environment”), sought compensation from SNIA in an aggregate amount of approximately $4 billion for remediation costs relating to the environmental damage at chemical sites previously operated by SNIA’s other subsidiaries. In September 2011 and July 2014, the Bankruptcy Court of Udine and the Bankruptcy Court of Milan held (in proceedings to which we are not parties) that the Italian Ministry of the Environment and other Italian government agencies (the “Public Administrations”) were not creditors of either SNIA or its subsidiaries in connection with their claims in the Italian insolvency proceedings. The Public Administrations appealed and in January 2016, the Court of Udine rejected the appeal. The Public Administrations have also appealed that decision. In January 2012, SNIA filed a civil action against Sorin in the Civil Court of Milan asserting joint liability of a parent and a spun-off company. On April 1, 2016, the Court of Milan dismissed all legal actions of SNIA and of the Public Administrations further requiring the Public Administrations to pay Sorin approximately $338,000 for legal fees. The Public Administrations appealed the 2016 Decision to the Court of Appeal of Milan and a final decision is pending. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Environmental Remediation Order On July 28, 2015, Sorin received an administrative order (the “Remediation Order”) from the Italian Ministry of the Environment directing prompt commencement of environmental remediation at the chemical sites previously operated by SNIA’s other subsidiaries. We challenged the Remediation Order before the Administrative Court of Lazio in Rome (the “TAR”), and the TAR annulled the Remediation Order. The Italian Ministry of the Environment appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal. On August 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals confirmed the decision and ordered the Public Administrations to bear court expenses of approximately $5,000. The Public Administrations have six months to determine whether they will attempt an appeal to the Supreme Court. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Opposition to Merger Proceedings On July 28, 2015, the Public Administrations filed an opposition proceeding to the merger between Sorin and Cyberonics, Inc. (the “Merger”), before the Commercial Courts of Milan. The Court authorized the Merger and the Public Administrations did not appeal this decision. The proceeding then continued as a civil case, with the Public Administrations seeking damages. The Commercial Court of Milan delivered a decision in October 2016, fully rejecting the Public Administrations’ request and awarding us approximately $480,000 in damages for frivolous litigation and legal fees. The Public Administrations appealed to the Court of Appeal of Milan. On May 15, 2018, the Court of Appeal of Milan confirmed its decision authorizing the Merger, but reduced the penalty of $480,000 in damages for frivolous litigation and legal fees to $58,000 for legal fees. The Public Administrations subsequently filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Patent Litigation On May 11, 2018, Neuro and Cardiac Technologies LLC (“NCT”), a non-practicing entity, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas asserting that the VNS Therapy System, when used with the SenTiva Model 1000 generator, infringes the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,076,307 owned by NCT. The complaint requests damages that include a royalty, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. On September 13, 2018, we petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the validity of the ‘307 patent. The Court has stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the IPR proceeding. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Tax Litigation In a tax audit report received October 30, 2009, the Regional Internal Revenue Office of Lombardy (the “Internal Revenue Office”) informed Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. that, among several issues, it was disallowing in part (for a total of €102.6 million (approximately $118.8 million), related to tax years 2002 through 2006) a tax-deductible write down of the investment in the U.S. company, Cobe Cardiovascular Inc., which Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. recognized in 2002 and deducted in five equal installments, beginning in 2002. In December 2009, the Internal Revenue Office issued notices of assessment for 2002, 2003 and 2004. The assessments for 2002 and 2003 were automatically voided for lack of merit. In December 2010 and October 2011, the Internal Revenue Office issued notices of assessment for 2005 and 2006, respectively. We challenged all three notices of assessment (for 2004, 2005 and 2006) before the relevant Provincial Tax Courts. The preliminary challenges filed for 2004, 2005 and 2006 were denied at the first jurisdictional level. We appealed these decisions. The appeal submitted against the first-level decision for 2004 was successful. The Internal Revenue Office appealed this second-level decision to the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) on February 3, 2017. The Italian Supreme Court’s decision is pending. The appeals submitted against the first-level decisions for 2005 and 2006 were rejected. We appealed these adverse decisions to the Italian Supreme Court, where the matters are still pending. In November 2012, the Internal Revenue Office served a notice of assessment for 2007, and in July 2013, served a notice of assessment for 2008. In these matters the Internal Revenue Office claims an increase in taxable income due to a reduction (similar to the previous notices of assessment for 2004, 2005 and 2006) of the losses reported by Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 tax periods, and subsequently utilized in 2007 and 2008. We challenged both notices of assessment. The Provincial Tax Court of Milan has stayed its decision for years 2007 and 2008 pending resolution of the litigation regarding years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The total amount of losses in dispute is €62.6 million (approximately $72.5 million). We have continuously reassessed our potential exposure in these matters, taking into account the recent, and generally adverse, trend to Italian taxpayers in this type of litigation. Although we believe that our defensive arguments are strong, noting the adverse trend in some of the court decisions, we have recognized a reserve for an uncertain tax position of €17.0 million (approximately $19.6 million as of September 30, 2018). Other Matters Additionally, we are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable and that may not be known for extended periods of time. Since the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the costs associated with them could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated net income, financial position or liquidity.

Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies

FDA Warning Letter

On December 29, 2015, the FDA issued a Warning Letter alleging certain violations of FDA regulations applicable to medical device manufacturers at our Munich, Germany and Arvada, Colorado facilities.

The FDA inspected the Munich facility from August 24, 2015 to August 27, 2015 and the Arvada facility from August 24, 2015 to September 1, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the FDA issued a Form 483 identifying two observed non-conformities with certain regulatory requirements at the Munich facility. We did not receive a Form 483 in connection with the FDA’s inspection of the Arvada facility. Following the receipt of the Form 483, we provided written responses to the FDA describing corrective and preventive actions that were underway or to be taken to address the FDA’s observations at the Munich facility. The Warning Letter responded in part to our responses and identified other alleged violations related to the manufacture of our 3T device that were not previously included in the Form 483.

The Warning Letter further stated that our 3T devices and other devices we manufactured at our Munich facility are subject to refusal of admission into the U.S. until resolution of the issues set forth by the FDA in the Warning Letter. The FDA has informed us that the import alert is limited to the 3T devices, but that the agency reserves the right to expand the scope of the import alert if future circumstances warrant such action. The Warning Letter did not request that existing users cease using the 3T device, and manufacturing and shipment of all of our products other than the 3T device remain unaffected by the import limitation. To help clarify these issues for current customers, we issued an informational Customer Letter in January 2016 and that same month agreed with the FDA on a process for shipping 3T devices to existing U.S. users pursuant to a certificate of medical necessity program.

Finally, the Warning Letter stated that premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which certain Quality System regulation deviations identified in the Warning Letter are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected; however, this restriction applies only to the Munich and Arvada facilities, which do not manufacture or design devices subject to Class III premarket approval.

We continue to work diligently to remediate the FDA’s inspectional observations for the Munich facility, as well as the additional issues identified in the Warning Letter. We take these matters seriously and intend to respond timely and fully to the FDA’s requests.

CDC and FDA Safety Communications and Company Field Safety Notice Update

On October 13, 2016, the CDC and the FDA separately released safety notifications regarding the 3T devices. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (“MMWR”) and Health Advisory Notice (“HAN”) reported that tests conducted by CDC and its affiliates indicate that there appears to be genetic similarity between both patient and 3T device strains of the non-tuberculous mycobacterium (“NTM”) bacteria M. chimaera isolated in hospitals in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Citing the geographic separation between the two hospitals referenced in the investigation, the report asserts that 3T devices manufactured prior to August 18, 2014 could have been contaminated during the manufacturing process. The CDC’s HAN and FDA’s Safety Communication, issued contemporaneously with the MMWR report, each assess certain risks associated with 3T devices and provide guidance for providers and patients. The CDC notification states that the decision to use the 3T device during a surgical operation is to be taken by the surgeon based on a risk approach and on patient need. Both the CDC’s and FDA’s communications confirm that 3T devices are critical medical devices and enable doctors to perform life-saving cardiac surgery procedures.

Also on October 13, 2016, in response to the Warning Letter and CDC’s HAN and FDA’s Safety Communication, we issued a Field Safety Notice Update for U.S. users of 3T devices to proactively and voluntarily contact facilities to aid in implementation of the CDC and FDA recommendations. In the fourth quarter of 2016, we initiated a program to provide existing 3T device users with a new loaner 3T device at no charge pending regulatory approval and implementation of additional risk mitigation strategies worldwide, including a vacuum canister and internal sealing upgrade program and a deep disinfection service. This loaner program began in the U.S. and is being made available progressively on a global basis, prioritizing and allocating devices to 3T device users based on pre-established criteria. We anticipate that this program will continue until we are able to address customer needs through a broader solution that includes implementation of the risk mitigation strategies described above. We are currently implementing the vacuum and sealing upgrade program in as many countries as possible until all devices are upgraded. On October 11, 2018, after review of information provided by LivaNova, the FDA concluded that LivaNova could commence the vacuum and sealing upgrade program in the U.S. Furthermore, we continue to offer a no-charge deep disinfection service (deep cleaning service) for 3T device users as we receive the required regulatory approvals. On April 12, 2018, the FDA agreed to allow us to move forward with the deep cleaning service in the U.S. adding to the growing list of countries around the world in which we offer this service.

On December 31, 2016, we recognized a liability for our product remediation plan related to our 3T device. We concluded that it was probable that a liability had been incurred upon management’s approval of the plan and the commitments made by management to various regulatory authorities globally in November and December 2016, and furthermore, the cost associated with the plan was reasonably estimable. At September 30, 2018, the product remediation liability was $17.9 million. Refer to “Note 6. Product Remediation Liability” for additional information.

Litigation

Product Liability

The Company is currently involved in litigation involving our 3T device. The litigation includes a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S. As of October 31, 2018, we are involved in approximately 150 claims worldwide, with the majority of the claims in various federal or state courts throughout the United States. The complaints generally seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer protection statutes. The class action, filed in February 2016, consists of all Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between 2011 and 2015 and who currently are asymptomatic for NTM infection. Members of the class seek declaratory relief that the 3T devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses, medical monitoring, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The class action and cases in federal court have been stayed as a result of the federal multi-district litigation. However, cases in state courts in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside the U.S continue to progress. We have not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

Civil Investigative Demand

On May 31, 2017, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia. The CID requested, and we have provided, certain documents relating to the sales and marketing of VNS devices and related products in the State of Georgia. On October 25, 2018, without an admission of guilt, we entered into a settlement agreement with the US Department of Justice, the State of Georgia, and a former Company employee, and agreed to pay approximately $1.9 million. Accordingly, during the three months ended September 30, 2018 we recognized $1.9 million in selling, general and administrative expenses reflecting settlement of this matter.

Environmental Liability

SNIA Litigation

Our subsidiary, Sorin S.p.A. (“Sorin”) was created as a result of a spin-off (the “Sorin spin-off”) from SNIA S.p.A. (“SNIA”) in January, 2004. SNIA subsequently became insolvent and the Italian Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of Land and Sea (the “Italian Ministry of the Environment”), sought compensation from SNIA in an aggregate amount of approximately $4 billion for remediation costs relating to the environmental damage at chemical sites previously operated by SNIA’s other subsidiaries.

In September 2011 and July 2014, the Bankruptcy Court of Udine and the Bankruptcy Court of Milan held (in proceedings to which we are not parties) that the Italian Ministry of the Environment and other Italian government agencies (the “Public Administrations”) were not creditors of either SNIA or its subsidiaries in connection with their claims in the Italian insolvency proceedings. The Public Administrations appealed and in January 2016, the Court of Udine rejected the appeal. The Public Administrations have also appealed that decision.

In January 2012, SNIA filed a civil action against Sorin in the Civil Court of Milan asserting joint liability of a parent and a spun-off company. On April 1, 2016, the Court of Milan dismissed all legal actions of SNIA and of the Public Administrations further requiring the Public Administrations to pay Sorin approximately $338,000 for legal fees. The Public Administrations appealed the 2016 Decision to the Court of Appeal of Milan and a final decision is pending.

We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Environmental Remediation Order

On July 28, 2015, Sorin received an administrative order (the “Remediation Order”) from the Italian Ministry of the Environment directing prompt commencement of environmental remediation at the chemical sites previously operated by SNIA’s other subsidiaries. We challenged the Remediation Order before the Administrative Court of Lazio in Rome (the “TAR”), and the TAR annulled the Remediation Order. The Italian Ministry of the Environment appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal. On August 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals confirmed the decision and ordered the Public Administrations to bear court expenses of approximately $5,000. The Public Administrations have six months to determine whether they will attempt an appeal to the Supreme Court. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Opposition to Merger Proceedings

On July 28, 2015, the Public Administrations filed an opposition proceeding to the merger between Sorin and Cyberonics, Inc. (the “Merger”), before the Commercial Courts of Milan. The Court authorized the Merger and the Public Administrations did not appeal this decision. The proceeding then continued as a civil case, with the Public Administrations seeking damages. The Commercial Court of Milan delivered a decision in October 2016, fully rejecting the Public Administrations’ request and awarding us approximately $480,000 in damages for frivolous litigation and legal fees. The Public Administrations appealed to the Court of Appeal of Milan. On May 15, 2018, the Court of Appeal of Milan confirmed its decision authorizing the Merger, but reduced the penalty of $480,000 in damages for frivolous litigation and legal fees to $58,000 for legal fees. The Public Administrations subsequently filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Patent Litigation

On May 11, 2018, Neuro and Cardiac Technologies LLC (“NCT”), a non-practicing entity, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas asserting that the VNS Therapy System, when used with the SenTiva Model 1000 generator, infringes the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,076,307 owned by NCT. The complaint requests damages that include a royalty, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. On September 13, 2018, we petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the validity of the ‘307 patent. The Court has stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the IPR proceeding. We have not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Tax Litigation

In a tax audit report received October 30, 2009, the Regional Internal Revenue Office of Lombardy (the “Internal Revenue Office”) informed Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. that, among several issues, it was disallowing in part (for a total of €102.6 million (approximately $118.8 million), related to tax years 2002 through 2006) a tax-deductible write down of the investment in the U.S. company, Cobe Cardiovascular Inc., which Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. recognized in 2002 and deducted in five equal installments, beginning in 2002. In December 2009, the Internal Revenue Office issued notices of assessment for 2002, 2003 and 2004. The assessments for 2002 and 2003 were automatically voided for lack of merit. In December 2010 and October 2011, the Internal Revenue Office issued notices of assessment for 2005 and 2006, respectively. We challenged all three notices of assessment (for 2004, 2005 and 2006) before the relevant Provincial Tax Courts.

The preliminary challenges filed for 2004, 2005 and 2006 were denied at the first jurisdictional level. We appealed these decisions. The appeal submitted against the first-level decision for 2004 was successful. The Internal Revenue Office appealed this second-level decision to the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) on February 3, 2017. The Italian Supreme Court’s decision is pending.

The appeals submitted against the first-level decisions for 2005 and 2006 were rejected. We appealed these adverse decisions to the Italian Supreme Court, where the matters are still pending.

In November 2012, the Internal Revenue Office served a notice of assessment for 2007, and in July 2013, served a notice of assessment for 2008. In these matters the Internal Revenue Office claims an increase in taxable income due to a reduction (similar to the previous notices of assessment for 2004, 2005 and 2006) of the losses reported by Sorin Group Italia S.r.l. for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 tax periods, and subsequently utilized in 2007 and 2008. We challenged both notices of assessment. The Provincial Tax Court of Milan has stayed its decision for years 2007 and 2008 pending resolution of the litigation regarding years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The total amount of losses in dispute is €62.6 million (approximately $72.5 million). We have continuously reassessed our potential exposure in these matters, taking into account the recent, and generally adverse, trend to Italian taxpayers in this type of litigation. Although we believe that our defensive arguments are strong, noting the adverse trend in some of the court decisions, we have recognized a reserve for an uncertain tax position of €17.0 million (approximately $19.6 million as of September 30, 2018).

Other Matters

Additionally, we are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable and that may not be known for extended periods of time. Since the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the costs associated with them could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated net income, financial position or liquidity.