|INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC filed this Form 10-K on 02/02/2018|
|<< Previous Page | Next Page >>|
NOTE 7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Company leases space for operations in United States, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, and certain other foreign countries. The Company also leases automobiles for certain sales and field service employees. These leases have varying terms up to fifteen years.
Future minimum lease commitments under the Company’s operating leases as of December 31, 2017, are as follows (in millions):
Other commitments include an estimated amount of approximately $478.1 million relating to the Company's open purchase orders and contractual obligations that occur in the ordinary course of business, including commitments with suppliers, for which we have not received the goods or services.
The Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, intellectual property, insurance, contract disputes, employment, and other matters. Certain of these lawsuits and claims are described in further detail below. It is not possible to predict what the outcome of these matters will be and the Company cannot guarantee that any resolution will be reached on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.
A liability and related charge to earnings are recorded in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements for legal contingencies when the loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The assessment is re-evaluated each accounting period and is based on all available information, including impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to each case. Nevertheless, it is possible that additional future legal costs (including settlements, judgments, legal fees, and other related defense costs) could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, or future results of operations.
Purported Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits filed April 26, 2013 and May 24, 2013
On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against a number of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013.
On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been retitled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company’s filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their complaint at that time. On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2014. Following opposition and reply briefing, the court denied the motion on December 15, 2014, allowing the case to move forward on the claims that remained. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015, and following opposition and reply briefing, the court held a hearing on the motion on January 21, 2016. While that motion remained pending, on October 11, 2016, the Company sent plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP, a letter enclosing a draft motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, primarily based on statements to the court that lacked a proper factual basis. In response, on November 1, 2016, plaintiffs’ local counsel withdrew from the case entirely and withdrew their signatures from the disputed pleadings. On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that did not include the disputed statements. On November 16, 2016, the Company filed an opposition
|<< Previous Page | Next Page >>|