Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
On March 23, 2017, Misonix’s former distributor in China, Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit against Misonix and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleged that Misonix improperly terminated its contract with the former distributor. The complaint sought various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages, specific performance and preliminary and post judgment injunctive relief, and asserted various causes of action, including breach of contract, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, fraudulent inducement, and conversion. On October 7, 2017, the court granted Misonix’s motion to dismiss each of the tort claims asserted against Misonix, and also granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them. On January 23, 2020, the Court granted Cicel’s motion to amend its complaint, to include claims for alleged defamation and theft of trade secrets in addition to the breach of contract claim. Discovery in the matter ended on August 5, 2021. On January 20, 2022, the Court granted Misonix’s summary judgment motion on Cicel’s breach of contract and defamation claims. We believe that we have various legal and factual defenses to the remaining trade secret claim and intend to defend the action vigorously. There is no trial date currently set.
Prior to the closing of our acquisition of Bioness, Bioness had been named as a defendant in a lawsuit, for which we are indemnified under the indemnification provisions contained in the Bioness Merger Agreement. The case relates to an action brought in February 2021 in the Delaware State Court of Chancery by a former minority shareholder and director of Bioness, seeking a temporary restraining order contesting our acquisition of Bioness. While the complaint to block the Bioness acquisition was dismissed by the court, a separate action was brought against the Company under the indemnification provisions of the Bioness Certificate of Incorporation to recover approximately $2.0 million in attorney fees and other expenses incurred by the director and shareholder in connection with the dismissed case.
On August 19, 2021, the court issued a ruling granting, in part, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees and related expenses incurred in connection with performance of the plaintiff’s directorial duties, and denying fees and expenses incurred in a non-director capacity. In its ruling, the Court’s order also directed the parties to agree upon a process that will govern the payment of and challenges to plaintiff’s payment requests and required Bioness to pay 50% of the demanded amount into escrow if more than 50% of the total invoiced amount was in dispute. Pursuant to the court’s order, to date, Bioness has paid approximately $1.0 million into escrow. We await the court’s final ruling on the appropriateness of these fees.
On February 8, 2022, the above referenced minority shareholder of Bioness filed another action in the Delaware State Court of Chancery in connection with our acquisition of Bioness. This action names the former Bioness directors, the Alfred E. Mann Trust (Trust), which was the former majority shareholder of Bioness, the trustees of the Trust and Bioventus as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual directors, the Trust, and the trustees breached their fiduciary duty to the plaintiff in connection with their consideration and approval of our transaction. The complaint also alleges that we aided and abetted the other defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and that we breached the Merger Agreement by failing to pay the plaintiff its pro rata share of the merger consideration. We believe that we are indemnified under the indemnification provisions contained in the Bioness Merger Agreement for these claims. We also believe that there are various legal and factual defenses to the claims plaintiff made against us and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
On September 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of Misonix filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Stein v. Misonix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05127 (E.D.N.Y.) (the Stein Complaint). The Stein Complaint names Misonix and members of its board of directors as defendants. On September 16, 2021, a purported stockholder of Misonix filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Ciccotelli v. Misonix, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (the Ciccotelli Complaint) against Misonix, members of its board of directors, the Company, and its subsidiaries, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II, as defendants. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Ciccotelli Complaint on November 10, 2021. On October 12, 2021, another purported stockholder of Misonix filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Rubin v. Misonix, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05672 (S.D.N.Y.) (the Rubin Complaint) and on October 15, 2021, another purported stockholder of Misonix filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Taylor v. Misonix, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08513 (S.D.N.Y.) (the Taylor Complaint). The Rubin Complaint and the Taylor Complaint name Misonix and members of its board of directors as defendants.
Each of the pending complaints asserts claims under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, challenging the adequacy of disclosures in the proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on September 8, 2021 or the Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on September 24, 2021, regarding Misonix and/or Bioventus’ projections and J.P. Morgan’s financial analysis. The complaints seek, among other relief, (i) injunctive relief preventing the parties from proceeding with the merger, (ii) rescission in the event that the merger is consummated, and (iii) an award of costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees.
65
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not Applicable
PART II