COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a former wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims. The plaintiff class alleges several violations of the California wage and hours laws, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime. The parties have engaged in written and other discovery. On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the same counsel as Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate representative action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the Private Attorneys’ General Act that is based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit. On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the Private Attorneys’ General Act that is based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit. The Company has agreed to resolve all three actions (Olivares, Holt, and Cato). The court in Cato approved the settlement in that case, the settlement payment has been made, and the court dismissed the lawsuit. The parties have also reached a settlement in the Olivares and Holt class action, which is immaterial to the financial statements of the Company. The final settlement amount has been approved by the Court and was paid by the Company in the first quarter of 2023.

On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws (the "State Court Action") by making material misrepresentations and omitting required information in the December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with the 2016 merger of Sirona Dental Systems Inc. ("Sirona") with DENTSPLY International Inc. (the "Merger"). The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and that three distributors of the Company's products had been engaging in anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of a class of former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their shares for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger. On September 26, 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims and a judgment dismissing the case was subsequently entered. On February 4, 2020, the Court denied plaintiffs' post-judgment motion to vacate or modify the judgment and to grant them leave to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the denial of the post-judgment motion to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, and the Company cross-appealed select rulings in the Court's decision dismissing the action. The plaintiffs' appeals and the Company's cross-appeal were consolidated and argued on January 12, 2021. On February 2, 2021, the Appellate Division issued its decision upholding the dismissal of the State Court Action with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds. The Plaintiffs did not appeal the Appellate Division decision.

On December 19, 2018, a related putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain individual defendants (the "Federal Class Action"). The plaintiff makes similar allegations and asserts the same claims as those asserted in the State Court Action. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated U.S. securities laws by making false and misleading statements in quarterly and annual reports and other public statements between February 20, 2014, and August 7, 2018. The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of (a) all purchasers of the Company's stock during the period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 15, 2019. The plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on January 22, 2021, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 8, 2021, with briefing on the motion fully submitted on May 21, 2021. The Company’s motion to dismiss was denied in a ruling by the Court on March 29, 2023 and, therefore, the Company’s answer to the second amended complaint is due on May 12, 2023.

On June 2, 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio captioned City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust v. Casey, Jr. et al., No. 2:22-cv-02371 (S.D. Ohio), and on July 28, 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-06339 (together, the “Securities Litigation”). The complaints in the Securities Litigation are substantially similar and both allege that, during the period from June 9, 2021 through May 9, 2022, the Company, Mr. Donald M. Casey Jr., the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Jorge Gomez, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer, violated U.S. securities laws by, among other things, making materially false and misleading statements or omissions, including regarding the manner in which the Company recognizes revenue tied to distributor rebate and incentive programs. On March 27, 2023, the Court in the Southern District of Ohio ordered the transfer of the putative class action to the Southern District of New York.

On March 21, 2023, Mr. Carlo Gobbetti filed a claim in the Milan Chamber of Arbitration against Dentsply Sirona Italia S.r.l., Italy, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, seeking a total of €28 million for the alleged failure to pay a portion of the purchase price pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement, dated October 8, 2012 (the “SPA”), in which Sirona Dental Systems, S.r.l., which at the time of execution of the SPA was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc., acquired all of the shares of MHT S.p.A., an Italian corporation, from Mr. Gobbetti, and various other sellers. Sirona Dental Systems S.r.l. merged into Dentsply Italia S.r.l. in 2018 (the surviving entity is now Dentsply Sirona Italia S.r.l.). In connection with the closing of that transaction, SIRONA Dental Systems GmbH paid an amount equal to €7 million into an escrow account (the “Escrow Account”). The proceeds of the Escrow Account were to be released to Mr. Gobbetti and the other sellers upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, including the delivery by July 2013 of a new prototype of an MHT S.p.A. camera which had to meet certain specifications. Mr. Gobbetti claims that he is entitled to receive the €7 million outstanding balance of the purchase price under the SPA, plus €21 million for damages incurred as a consequence of the failure to make the payment. Mr. Gobbetti claims that he has a right to receive the full purchase price under the SPA even if the conditions set out in the SPA to deliver a prototype of the MHT S.p.A. camera by July 2013 were not met. Dentsply Sirona Italia S.r.l. denies that Mr. Gobbetti and the other sellers were entitled to receive the funds deposited in the Escrow Account. Dentsply Sirona Italia S.r.l.’s initial response, including preliminary objections, is due by May 15, 2023. Dentsply Sirona Italia S.r.l. denies it has liability in this matter and intends to vigorously defend against Mr. Gobbetti’s claims.

Except as noted above, no specific amounts of damages have been alleged in these lawsuits. The Company will continue to incur legal fees in connection with these pending cases, including expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of present and former officers and directors under indemnification obligations. The expense of continuing to defend such litigation may be significant. The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in any defense. If any of the lawsuits are decided adversely, the Company may be liable for significant damages directly or under our indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flows. At this stage, the Company is are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of these lawsuits or estimate the range of any potential loss.

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) conducted an examination of the U.S. federal income tax returns for tax years 2012 through 2013. In February 2019, the IRS issued to the Company a “30-day letter” and a Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”), relating to the Company’s worthless stock deduction in 2013 in the amount of $546 million. The RAR disallows the deduction and, after adjusting the Company’s net operating loss carryforward, asserts that the Company is entitled to a refund of $5 million for 2012, has no tax liability for 2013, and owes a deficiency of $17 million in tax for 2014, excluding interest. In accordance with ASC 740, the Company recorded the tax benefit associated with the worthless stock deduction in the Company’s 2012 financial statements. In March 2019, the Company submitted a formal protest disputing on multiple grounds the proposed taxes. The Company and its advisors discussed its position with the IRS Appeals Office Team in October 2020, and in November 2020 submitted a supplemental response to questions raised by the Appeals Team. During the first quarter of 2023, after an extended review by the IRS Appeals Office team, the Company received a notice from the IRS, allowing the Company’s worthless stock deduction for tax year 2013. As a result, the Company is anticipating a refund of $5 million for tax year 2012 with no further adjustments to the 2013 tax return.

IRS is conducting an examination of our U.S. federal income tax returns for the tax years 2015 through 2016. In April 2023, the Company received a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (“NOPA”) from the IRS examination team proposing an adjustment related to an internal reorganization completed in 2016 with respect to the integration of certain operations of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. following its acquisition in 2016. Although the proposed adjustment does not result in any additional federal income tax liability for the internal reorganization, if sustained, the proposed adjustment would result in the company owing additional federal income taxes on a distribution of $451 million as a result of a stock redemption that occurred after the internal reorganization was completed in 2016. We believe that we accurately reported the federal income tax consequences of the internal restructuring and stock redemption in our tax returns and will submit an administrative protest with the IRS Independent Office of Appeals contesting the examination team’s proposed adjustments if the issue is not resolved with the IRS examination team. We intend to vigorously defend our reported positions and believe that it is more likely-than-not that our position will be sustained. However, the outcome of this dispute involves a number of uncertainties, including those relating to the application of the Internal Revenue Code and other federal income tax authorities and judicial precedent. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the dispute with the IRS will be resolved favorably. If determined adversely, the dispute could have a material adverse effect on the consolidated results of operations, financial position, and liquidity of the Company.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its positions and pursue related appeals in the above-described pending matters.

In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company is, from time to time, subject to a variety of litigation and similar proceedings incidental to its business. These legal matters primarily involve claims for damages arising out of the use of the Company’s products and services and claims relating to intellectual property matters including patent infringement, employment matters, tax matters, commercial disputes, competition and sales and trading practices, personal injury, and insurance coverage. The Company may also become subject to lawsuits as a result of past or future acquisitions or as a result of liabilities retained from, or representations, warranties or indemnities provided in connection with, divested businesses. Some of these lawsuits may include claims for punitive and consequential, as well as compensatory damages. Except as otherwise noted, the Company generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the above described pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. Based upon the Company’s experience, current information, and applicable law, it does not believe that these proceedings and claims will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. However, in the event of unexpected further developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, or other similar matters, if unfavorable, may be materially adverse to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

While the Company maintains general, product, property, workers’ compensation, automobile, cargo, aviation, crime, fiduciary and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance up to certain limits that cover certain of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or unavailable to cover such losses. In addition, while the Company believes it is entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these claims, these rights may also be insufficient or unavailable to cover such losses.

Commitments

Purchase Commitments

The Company has certain non-cancelable future commitments primarily related to long-term supply contracts for key components and raw materials. At March 31, 2023, non-cancelable purchase commitments are as follows:


(in millions)



2023	$	158
2024	148
2025	59
2026	55
2027	6
Thereafter	3
Total	$	429

The above information should be read in conjunction with Part II, Item 7 “Contractual Obligations” and Part II, Item 8, Note 22 “Commitments and Contingencies” in our 2022 Form 10-K.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of March 31, 2023, we had no material off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a current or future material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources other than certain items disclosed in the sections above.

Indemnification

In the normal course of business to facilitate sale of our products and services, we indemnify certain parties: customers, vendors, lessors, and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, services to be provided by us and intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and our executive officers that will require us, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. Several of these agreements limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim.

It is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Additionally, we have a limited history of prior indemnification claims and the payments we have made under such agreements have not had a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position. As of March 31, 2023, we did not have any material indemnification claims that were probable or reasonably possible. However, to the extent that valid indemnification claims arise in the future, future payments by us could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows in a particular period.