COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

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 to Olivares and Holt are in the process of seeking court approval of that settlement. The expected settlement amount, which is immaterial to the financial statements, has been recorded as an accrued liability within the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2022.

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. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was fully submitted on May 21, 2021, and that motion is currently pending before the Court.

On June 2, 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the United States 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 United States 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 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 United States 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.

No specific amounts of damages have been alleged in these lawsuits. We 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. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. If any of the lawsuits are decided adversely, we 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, we 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.

As a result of an audit by the IRS for fiscal years 2012 through 2013, on February 11, 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 on October 28, 2020 and, on November 13, 2020, submitted a supplemental response to questions raised by the Appeals Team. The Company’s position continues to be reviewed by the IRS Appeals Office team. The Company believes the IRS’ position is without merit and believes that it is more likely-than-not the Company’s position will be sustained upon further review by the IRS Appeals Office Team. The Company has not accrued a liability relating to the proposed tax adjustments. However, the outcome of this dispute involves a number of uncertainties, including those inherent in the valuation of various assets at the time of the worthless stock deduction, and 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 would result in a current period charge to earnings and could have a material adverse effect in the consolidated results of operations, financial position, and liquidity of the Company.

The Swedish Tax Agency has disallowed certain of the Company’s interest expense deductions for the tax years from 2013 to 2018. If such interest expense deductions were disallowed, the Company would be subject to an additional $39 million in tax expense. The Company has appealed the disallowance to the Swedish Administrative Court. With respect to such deductions taken in the tax years from 2013 to 2014, the Court ruled against the Company on July 5, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the Company appealed the unfavorable decision of the Swedish Administrative Court. On November 5, 2018, the Company delivered its final argument to the Administrative Court of Appeals at a hearing. The European Union Commission has taken the view that Sweden’s interest deduction limitation rules are incompatible with European Union law and supporting legal opinions, and therefore the Company has not paid the tax or made provision in its financial statements for such potential expense. This view has now been confirmed by the European Union Court of Justice in a preliminary ruling requested by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court. Subsequently, the Swedish Tax Authority has conceded in pending court proceedings that the Company should be granted further interest expense deductions, but still claims that interest expense deductions incurring a maximum additional tax expense of $7 million should be disallowed on grounds not relating to European Union law.

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 June 30, 2022, non-cancelable purchase commitments are as follows:


(in millions)


2022	$	114
2023	121
2024	61
2025	36
2026	43
Thereafter	—
Total	$	375

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 2021 Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of June 30, 2022, 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 June 30, 2022, 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.