COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2022
|COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES.|
|COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES||
17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
From time to time, the Company may face legal claims or actions in the normal course of business. At each reporting date, the Company evaluates whether a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. The Company expenses as incurred the costs related to its legal proceedings. While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe the outcome of any current legal proceedings will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
Between September 2021 and the closing of the ExOne Merger on November 12, 2021, twelve putative class action complaints were filed by purported ExOne shareholders against ExOne and the former ExOne Board of Directors alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the S-4 filed by ExOne for the ExOne Merger. All have been dismissed.
On November 8, 2021, another purported stockholder, Leo Lissoq Goldstein, filed a Section 220 complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against ExOne (Goldstein v. The ExOne Company, Case No. 2021-0958-KSJM). Mr. Goldstein seeks to discover certain books and records of the company related to the ExOne Merger purportedly in order to investigate, among other things, the events leading up to and the disclosures made in connection with the ExOne Merger. Mr. Goldstein has also moved to intervene and stay the Campanella action, discussed below, until his Section 220 action is complete.
On November 22, 2021, purported stockholder Pietro Campanella filed a class action lawsuit against ExOne, Desktop Metal, Inc., and former ExOne directors and officers alleging breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the ExOne Merger (Campanella v. The ExOne Company et al., Case No. 2021-1013, Case No. 2021-1013-LWW). In particular, Mr. Campanella alleges that ExOne’s proxy statement and supplemental disclosures did not adequately disclose information related to a whistleblower investigation at one of Desktop Metal’s subsidiaries, EnvisionTEC, and the resignation of EnvisionTEC’s CEO.
On December 21, 2021, January 14, 2022, February 2, 2022 and February 22, 2022, four alleged shareholders of Desktop Metal stock filed purported securities class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. (Luongo v. Desktop Metal, D. Mass., Case No. 1:21-cv-12099-IT; Hathaway v. Desktop Metal, D. Mass., Case No. 1:22-cv-10059-IT; Guzman-Martinez v. Desktop Metal, D. Mass, Case No. 1:22-cv-10173, Xie v. Desktop Metal, Case No. 1:22-cv-10297-IT). Each complaint alleges that Desktop Metal and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements regarding EnvisionTEC’s manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures. On February 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating the first three District of Massachusetts securities class actions. On July 7, 2022, the court appointed Sophia Zhou lead plaintiff for the class period of February 17, 2021 through November
15, 2021. The court also vacated its earlier order consolidating the Xie action with the other lawsuits and will allow that action to proceed separately, with a new notice to investors, based on a class period of January 15, 2021 to February 16, 2021.
On July 12, 2022, two alleged shareholders of Desktop Metal stock filed derivative actions purportedly on behalf of Desktop Metal in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. (Keyser v. Fulop, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-11117; Qi v. Fulop, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-1118). On July 22, 2022, an alleged shareholder of Desktop Metal stock filed a similar derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Cherry v. Fulop, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00962). The complaints allege that certain officers and directors of Desktop Metal caused harm to the Company by violating Section 14(A) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 and breaching their fiduciary duties by making false or misleading statements regarding EnvisionTEC’s manufacturing and product compliance practice and procedures.
The Company believes that these complaints are all without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
The Company has entered into legally binding agreements with certain suppliers to purchase materials used in the manufacturing of the Company’s products. As of June 30, 2022, the Company had outstanding purchase orders with contract manufacturers in the amount of $56.4 million which are not included in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.
The Company has also entered into licensing and royalty agreements with certain manufacturing and software companies and universities related to the use of patented technology. Under the terms of each agreement, the Company has made initial, one-time payments of $0.3 million and is obligated to pay a set percentage, ranging from 1.0% - 13%, of all consideration received by the Company for sales of related products and services, until the agreements are terminated at various dates through 2037. The Company’s aggregate minimum annual commitment under these contracts is $0.3 million. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, the Company recorded immaterial licensing and royalty fees.
As a result of the acquisition of ExOne, the Company assumed short-term financial guarantees and letters of credit. Within the Company’s normal course of operations, it issues these short-term financial guarantees and letters of credit through a credit facility with a German bank to third parties in connection with certain commercial transactions requiring security. The credit facility provides a capacity amount of $4.0 million for the issuance of financial guarantees and letters of credit for commercial transactions requiring security. The credit facility does not require cash collateral for the issuance of financial guarantees and letters of credit for commercial transactions requiring security for amounts up to $1.1 million. Amounts in excess of $1.1 million require cash collateral under the credit facility.
At June 30, 2022, total outstanding financial guarantees and letters of credit issued by the Company under the credit facility were $3.6 million, of which $1.6 million have expiration dates ranging from August 2022 to March 2023, and the remaining $2.0 million with no expiration date. At June 30, 2022, cash collateral of $2.6 million was required for financial guarantees and letters of credit issued under the credit facility, and is included in current portion of restricted cash in the consolidated balance sheets.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef