Commitments and Contingencies |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2022 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Service Agreements
The Company pays CTS a facility fee for the use of clean room/manufacturing, storage, and office space and for services in support of its product process including for routine sterilization of daily supplies, providing disposable supplies and microbial services, and office support. Pursuant to the CTS Agreement, the Company recorded expenses of $2,278, $2,466 and $1,739 for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively, in sales and marketing expenses. The CTS Agreement terminates December 31, 2023, subject to earlier termination by either party at any time for cause (subject to the non-terminating party’s right to cure, in certain circumstances), or without cause upon 6 months prior notice. We expect to reduce our utilization of CTS in the second half of 2023.
In December 2011, the Company entered into a Master Services Agreement for Clinical Research and Related Services. The Company was required to pay $151 upon execution of this agreement and the remainder monthly based on activities associated with the execution of Axogen’s phase 3 pivotal clinical trial to support the BLA for Avance Nerve Graft. Payments made under this agreement were $1,254, $1,100 and $1,136 for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
Distribution and Supply Agreements
In August 2008, the Company entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with Cook Biotech to distribute the Axoguard Nerve Connector and Axoguard Nerve Protector products worldwide and the parties subsequently amended the agreement on February 26, 2018. Pursuant to the February 2018 amendment, the agreement expires on June 30, 2027. The Cook Biotech agreement establishes a formula for the transfer cost of the Axoguard products and requires certain minimum purchases by the Company, although, through mutual agreement, the parties have not established such minimums; and, to date, have not enforced such provision. Under the Cook Biotech agreement, the Company provides purchase orders to Cook Biotech, and Cook Biotech fulfills the purchase orders. The agreement allows for termination provisions for both parties. The loss of the ability to sell the Axoguard products could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business until other replacement products would be available.
In June 2017, the Company entered into the Nerve End Cap Supply Agreement (the "Supply Agreement") with Cook Biotech whereby Cook Biotech is the exclusive contract manufacturer of the Axoguard Nerve Cap and both parties have provided the other party the necessary licenses to their technologies for operation of the Supply Agreement. The Supply Agreement expires on August 27, 2027. Under the Supply Agreement the Company provides purchase orders to Cook Biotech and Cook Biotech fulfills the purchase orders.
Axogen Processing Center Facility
The Company is highly dependent on the continued availability of its processing facilities at the Community Blood Center facility (“CTS”) in Dayton, Ohio and could be harmed if the physical infrastructure of this facility is unavailable for any prolonged period of time.
On July 31, 2018, the Company purchased the APC Facility in Vandalia, Ohio, located near the CTS processing facility where Avance Nerve Graft is currently processed. The APC Facility, when and if operational, will be the new processing facility for Avance Nerve Graft to provide continued capacity for growth and to support the transition of Avance Nerve Graft from a Human Cellular and Tissue-based Product pursuant to Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to a biologic product under section 351 of the PHSA. The APC Facility is comprised of a 107,000 square foot building on approximately 8.6 acres of land. The Company paid $731 for the land and this is recorded as land within Property and equipment, net on the consolidated balance sheets. The Company paid $4,300 for the building and this is recorded in projects in process within Property and equipment, net on the consolidated balance sheets.
On July 9, 2019, the Company entered into a Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Design-Builder (the “Design-Build Agreement”) with CRB Builders, L.L.C., a Missouri limited liability company (“CRB”), pursuant to which CRB will renovate and retrofit the APC Facility. The estimated cost pursuant to the Design-Build Agreement was $29,300. Additional costs associated with the renovation, validation and certification of the APC Facility are estimated to be $20,900. For the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company has recorded $10,938 related to renovations and design and build in projects in progress. The Company has recorded $46,354 to date related to this project. In addition to these project costs, the Company has capitalized interest of $6,155 for the year ended December 31, 2022. To date, the Company has capitalized interest of $11,429 related to this project. These items are recorded as projects in process in property and equipment, net on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company anticipates recording an additional $4,000 to $5,000 in 2023. The Company anticipates completion of construction, validation of systems and processes in the first half of 2023 and commence processing in mid- 2023.
The Company obtained certain economic development grants from state and local authorities totaling up to $2,685 including $1,250 of cash grants to offset costs to acquire and develop the APC Facility. The economic development grants are subject to certain job creation milestones by 2023 and related contingencies. The Company received zero, $950 and $238 from these grants in the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. These grants have claw back clauses if the Company does not meet these job creation milestones by 2023, the Company has sent requests to the grant authorities for extensions of the job creation milestones; however, the Company has not yet received a decision from the grant authorities regarding whether extensions will be granted.
Fair Value of the Debt Derivative Liabilities
The fair value of the debt derivative liabilities is $4,518 as of December 31, 2022. The fair value of the debt derivative liabilities was determined using a probability-weighted expected return model based upon the four potential settlement scenarios for the Credit Facility which are described in Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies – Derivative Instruments. The estimated settlement value of each scenario, which includes any required make-whole payment see Note 9 - Long-Term Debt, Net of Debt Discount and Financing Fees , is then discounted to present value using a discount rate that is derived based upon the initial terms of the Credit Facility at issuance and corroborated utilizing a synthetic rating analysis. The calculated fair values under the four scenarios are then compared to the fair value of a plain vanilla note, with the difference reflecting the fair value of the Debt Derivative Liabilities. The Company estimated the make-whole payments required under each scenario according to the terms of the Credit Facility to generate an internal rate of return equal to 11.5% through the scheduled maturity dates, less the total of all quarterly interest and royalty payments previously paid to the Lender. The calculation utilized the XIRR function in Microsoft Excel as required by the Credit Facility. If the debt is not prepaid but instead is held to its scheduled maturities, the Company’s estimate of the make-whole payment for the first and second tranches of the Credit Facility due on June 30, 2027, and June 30, 2028, respectively, are approximately zero. The Company has consistently applied this approach since the inception of the debt agreement on June 30, 2020.
The Company has become aware that the Lender may have an alternative interpretation of the calculation of the make-whole payments that the Company believes does not properly utilize the same methodology utilized by the XIRR function in Microsoft Excel as described in the Credit Facility. The Company estimates the top end of the range of the make-whole payments if the debt is held to scheduled maturity under an alternative interpretation to be approximately $9,000 for the first tranche of the Credit Facility on June 30, 2027, and approximately $4,000 for the second tranche of the Credit Facility on June 30, 2028. Further, if the debt is prepaid prior to the scheduled maturity dates and subject to the alternative interpretation, the make-whole payment would be larger than the amounts herein.
Other Commitments
Certain executive officers of the Company are parties to employment contracts. Such contracts have severance payments for certain conditions including change of control.
Legal Proceedings
The Company is and may be subject to various claims, lawsuits, and proceedings in the ordinary course of the Company's business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingency involving the Company. In the opinion of management, such claims are either adequately covered by insurance or otherwise indemnified, or are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a material, adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, it is possible that the Company's results of operations, financial position and cash flows in a particular period could be materially affected by these contingencies.
On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers (“Individual Defendants”), and Axogen’s 2017 Offering Underwriters and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual Defendants, the “Defendants”), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading statements in connection with the Company’s November 2017 registration statement issued regarding its secondary public offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018. In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2) that the Company’s pricing alienated customers and threatened the Company’s future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a significant part of the market for the Company’s products; (4) that such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company’s consignment model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the Company’s sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company’s key operating metrics, such as the number of active accounts, were overstated; and (11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion which provided that Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019. The Court held a status hearing on September 11, 2019 and stayed all deadlines regarding the parties’ obligations to file a case management report. On December 4, 2019, the parties presented oral arguments. On April 21, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on June 22, 2020. Axogen filed a motion to dismiss on August 6, 2020. The Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 20, 2020. The Court held oral argument on February 25, 2021. On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding again that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff filed its opening brief on June 28, 2021. The Company filed its appellee brief on August 11, 2021. The Plaintiff filed a reply brief on September 14, 2021. The Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument the week of March 8, 2022. On August 1, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.
|