Vivos Therapeutics, Inc. 10-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings. From time to time, we are involved in various claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. On April 13, 2021, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (“WSDFI”) sent a letter and subpoena requesting that we produce certain documents and records. WSDFI is investigating certain sales of our common stock by a previous employee and independent contractor in Washington prior to our initial public offering. This subject matter in general (including activities of such previous employee and independent contractor) had been among the issues previously investigated by a joint committee of our board of directors and internal and external legal counsel that commenced in February 2020 and, pursuant to the findings and recommendations of the joint committee, led to the company implementing in April 2020 certain enhanced corporate governance policies (in the form of a formal written policy on private stock sales requiring prior approval of our internal or external legal counsel and changes to certain organizational matters). We have cooperated with WSDFI regarding this investigation, but during and subsequent to the year ended December 31, 2021, we have not been made aware of any developments with the investigation. On June 5, 2020, we filed suit against Ortho-Tain, Inc.(“Ortho-Tain”) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking relief from certain false, threatening, and defamatory statements to our business affiliate, Benco Dental (“Benco”). We believe such statements have interfered with our business relationship and contract, causing harm to our reputation, loss of goodwill, and unspecified monetary damages. On February 12, 2021, we amended our complaint to add claims for false advertising and unfair business practices, as well as additional variants of the original claims to address Ortho-Tain’s alleged false advertising campaign against us in the fall of 2020. Our amended complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief to prevent what we believe are defamatory statements and interference with our business relationships by Ortho-Tain. We further seek declaratory relief to refute the defendant’s false allegations, as well as monetary damages. Prior to filing suit, we worked collaboratively with legal counsel at Benco to address and resolve this matter. Such efforts were unsuccessful. On February 26, 2021, Ortho-Tain, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We opposed the motion. On September 3, 2021, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss on all grounds and lifted the stay of discovery. On September 7, 2021, Ortho-Tain filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On September 21, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On October 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals referred the motion to dismiss the appeal to the merits panel for decision along with the merits. The appeal is now fully briefed and awaiting decision form the Tenth Circuit. - 57 - On July 22, 2020 Ortho-Tain, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois naming our company, along with our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, R. Kirk Huntsman, Benco Dental Supply Co., Dr. Brian Kraft, Dr. Ben Miraglia, and Dr. Mark Musso (the “Illinois Ortho-Tain Case”). The complaint in the Illinois Ortho-Tain Case addresses the same events as the suit we filed against Ortho-Tain, Inc. in June 2020 as described above. The complaint in the Illinois Ortho-Tain Case alleges violation of the Lanham Act and an alleged civil conspiracy among the defendants to violate the Lanham Act by an alleged false designation of origin related to a presentation given by Dr. Brian Kraft at an event sponsored by us and Benco Dental. Ortho-Tain also alleges that the actions of the defendants, including our company, diverted sales from Ortho-Tain, deprived Ortho-Tain of advertising value and resulted in a loss of goodwill to Ortho-Tain. Ortho-Tain also alleges two separate breach of contract actions against Dr. Brian Kraft and Mr. Huntsman. Ortho-Tain’s allegation of breach of contract against Mr. Huntsman, relates to a Non-Disclosure Agreement entered into in October 2013 with Mr. Huntsman’s prior entity, Xenith Practices, LLC, which Non-Disclosure Agreement expired pursuant to its terms in October 2016. We continue to evaluate the allegations, although we believe they lack merit and think Ortho-Tain will be unable to establish actionable damages. On September 9, 2020, we moved to dismiss the claims against us in the Illinois Ortho-Tain Case. On October 23, 2020, we filed a motion requesting, in the alternative, that if the case is not dismissed, it be transferred to the Colorado action described above or stayed. On May 14, 2021, the Court granted our motion to stay the Illinois Ortho-Tain Case, pending resolution of the Colorado action described above. On September 3, 2021 and again on December 2, 2021., the Court extended the stay. The case remains stayed. On May 17, 2021, plaintiff Steven Rospond (“Rospond”) filed a lawsuit against Proceed Finance asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act against Defendants Proceed Finance and Security First Bank regarding a $50,000 loan Rospond took to pay for services provided by our company. Rospond sent us a subpoena seeking various documents relating to the services provided by us to which it responded and provided documents on December 21, 2021. In an Order dated October 26, 2021, the court granted Rospond an extension of up to seven days after we delivered documents to Rospond within which to amend his lawsuit, including to assert claims against us. To date, we have no knowledge of Rospond asserting any claims against us. According to the court’s docket, this lawsuit is still pending and has not been dismissed. There are no other legal proceedings currently pending against us, or known to be contemplated by any governmental agency, which we believe would have a material effect on our business, financial position or results of operations. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures. Not applicable. - 58 - PART II