for the Northern District of Florida (“Florida Federal Complaint”);
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the
Eastern District of Michigan (collectively “Michigan Federal
Complaints.”); the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
(“Colorado Federal Complaint”); the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (“Oregon Federal Complaint”); the Fayette,
Kentucky Circuit Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky (collectively, “Kentucky Complaints.”); the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
(“Louisiana Federal Complaint”).
Plaintiffs in the Indiana State Complaints allege a cause of action
under Indiana’s Product Liability Act, citing manufacturing
defects, defective design and failure to properly warn and
instruct, and several of the complaints allege loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs in these actions assert that the defendants are
strictly liable or have breached the duty of care owed to
plaintiffs by failing to exercise reasonable care in designing,
manufacturing, marketing and labeling FiberCel and are seeking
various types of damages, including economic damages, non-economic
damages and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs in one of the
Indiana State Complaints allege causes of action for product
liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties,
and punitive damages. Each of the plaintiffs in the Delaware
State Complaints alleges negligence, breach of implied warranty,
breach of express warranty, and medical monitoring and punitive
damages, and two also allege loss of consortium. Plaintiffs
in the Delaware State Complaints are seeking economic,
consequential, and punitive damages. The Maryland State Complaints
assert claims of negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of
express warranty, medical monitoring, and loss of consortium. The
Florida Federal Complaint contains three strict liability claims
for defective design, defective manufacture, and failure to warn. A
claim for punitive damages is also pled. The Ohio State Complaint
alleges causes of action for product liability and negligence and
seeks compensatory damages. The Colorado Federal Complaint asserts
causes of action for strict product liability, misrepresentation,
negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied
warranty of merchantability. The Michigan Federal Complaints assert
causes of action for negligence, gross negligence breach of implied
warranty, breach of express warranty, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and liability under the res ipsa loquitur
doctrine. The Michigan Federal Complaints seek compensatory damages
and punitive damages. The North Carolina Federal Complaint
alleges causes of action for negligence, defective design, breach
of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and loss of
consortium, and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. The
Oregon Federal Complaint asserts strict liability claims for
defective design, defective manufacture, and failure to warn, and
seeks compensatory damages. The Ohio Federal Complaint
asserts strict liability claims for defective manufacturing,
inadequate warning, nonconformance with representations, and also
alleges loss of consortium and seeks compensatory damages. The
Kentucky Complaints assert strict liability claims based on
manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence,
breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and seek
recovery for medical monitoring, loss of consortium, compensatory
damages, and punitive damages. The Louisiana Federal Complaint
asserts claims of violation of the Louisiana products liability
act, negligence and gross negligence, breach of implied warranty,
breach of express warranty and seek recovery for medical
monitoring.
In addition to the above, there have been 42 claims related to the
FiberCel recall that have not yet resulted in a lawsuit. The
Company refers to all of the aforementioned litigation, or claim
notices, collectively as the “FiberCel Litigation.”
In October 2022, the Company engaged in a process to negotiate and
attempt to resolve many of the cases in the FiberCel Litigation.
The Company also mediated and resolved a Maryland lawsuit in August
2022. In total, Aziyo’s liability in 24 of the cases was settled
(23 of which are pending finalization of the related settlement
agreements) for a total of approximately $7.2 million. The settled
matters included cases from the Indiana State Complaints, Ohio
State Complaint, Florida Federal Complaint, Colorado Federal
Complaint, Delaware State Complaints and Maryland Complaint, along
with claims in six states. Of these settled matters, one case was
both settled and paid as of September 30, 2022 for a total cash
outlay of $1.3 million. For the remaining 73 cases, the Company
estimated a probable loss related to each case and has recorded a
liability at an estimated amount of $11.7 million bringing the
total estimated liability at September 30, 2022 to $17.6 million,
which is recorded as Contingent Liability for FiberCel Litigation
in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.
Although we believe there is a possibility that a loss in
excess of the amount recognized exists, we are unable to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount
recognized at this time. In order to reasonably estimate the
liability for the unsettled FiberCel Litigation cases, the Company,
along with outside legal counsel, has assessed a variety of
factors, including (i) the extent of the injuries incurred, (ii)
recent experience on the settled claims, (iii) settlement offers
made to the other parties to the litigation and (iv) any other
factors that may have a material effect on the FiberCel Litigation.
While the Company believes its estimated liability to be
reasonable, the actual