Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Bioventus stockholder litigation
On January 12, 2023, the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of North Carolina, Ciarciello v. Bioventus, Inc., No. 1:23– CV – 00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. 2023). The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and generally alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding rebate practices, its business and financial prospects, and the sufficiency of internal controls regarding financial reporting. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2023, the Court appointed Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff’s amended consolidated complaint was filed with the Court on June 12, 2023. On July 17, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint raising a number of legal and factual deficiencies with the amended consolidated complaint. In response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 31, 2023. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 21, 2023, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on November 6, 2023. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Securities Act claims, but allowed the plaintiff’s Exchange Act claims to proceed into discovery.
67
Table of Contents
On October 4, 2023, certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a derivative shareholder lawsuit (in which the Company was a nominal defendant) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Grogan, on behalf of Bioventus Inc., v. Reali, et.al., No. 1:23-CV-01099-RGA (D. Del. 2023). The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties and related state law claims, and a claim for contribution, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On January 12, 2024, the Court agreed to stay this case pending resolution of the Ciarciello case.
On February 9, 2024, another plaintiff filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers (in which the Company is a nominal defendant) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Sanderson, on behalf of Bioventus Inc., v. Reali, et.al., No. 1:24-cv-00180-RGA (D. Del. 2024). Like the Grogan case, this case asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties and related state law claims, and a claim for contribution, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. The parties are in discussions to consolidate the two derivative matters and stay them on terms similar to those entered in the Grogan case.
The Company believes the claims alleged in each of the above matters lack merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The outcome of the these matters is not presently determinable, and any loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable.
Misonix former distributor litigation
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. Cicel’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment ruling in Misonix’s favor was dismissed by the Court on April 29, 2022. On July 18, 2022, Cicel voluntarily dismissed the remaining claim for trade secret theft and later filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 6, 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling affirming the lower Court’s summary judgement in favor of Misonix in all respects.
Bioness stockholder litigation
On February 8, 2022, a minority shareholder of Bioness filed an action in the Delaware State Court of Chancery in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Bioness. Teuza, a Fairchild Technology Venture Ltd. v. Lindon, et. al., No. 2022-0130 -SG. 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 the Company’s transaction. The complaint also alleges that the Company aided and abetted the other defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and that the Company breached the Merger Agreement by failing to pay the plaintiff its pro rata share of the merger consideration. The Company believes that it is indemnified under the indemnification provisions contained in the Bioness Merger Agreement for these claims. On July 20, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims made against it on various grounds, as did all the other named defendants in the suit. A hearing on Bioness’ and other the defendant’s motions was held before the Court of Chancery on January 19, 2023. On April 27, 2023, the Court issued an order which, among other things, dismissed Bioventus from the case.
Please refer to Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 12. Commitments and contingencies of this Annual Report for additional information pertaining to legal proceedings. In addition, we are party to legal proceedings incidental to our business. While our management currently believes the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not Applicable.
68
Table of Contents
PART II