XML 52 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.4
Legal Proceedings
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Legal Proceedings Legal Proceedings
    
2019 Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

In January 2019, three derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California which were later consolidated, purportedly on our behalf, naming as defendants the then current members of our Board of Directors along with certain of our executive officers. The complaints assert various state law causes of action, including for breaches of fiduciary duty, insider trading, and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages on our behalf, which is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought, as well as disgorgement and the costs and expenses associated with the litigation, including attorneys’ fees. The consolidated action is currently stayed. Defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.

On April 12, 2019, a derivative lawsuit was also filed in California Superior Court for Santa Clara County, purportedly on our behalf, naming as defendants the members of our Board of Directors along with certain of our executive officers. The allegations in the complaint are similar to those in the derivative suits described above. The matter is currently stayed. Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.

We believe these claims are without merit. We are currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

2020 Securities Class Action Lawsuit

On March 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit against us and two of our executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock. The complaint alleged claims under the federal securities laws and sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses incurred in the litigation. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 4, 2020 against us and three of our executive officers alleging similar claims as in the initial complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock from April 25, 2019 to July 24, 2019. On March 29, 2021, defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted with leave for the lead plaintiff to file a further amended complaint. On April 22, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a notice stating it would not file a further amended complaint. On April 23, 2021, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice and judgment was entered. Lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on April 28, 2021 and filed its opening appeal brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on September 1, 2021. The defendants-appellees filed their answering brief on November 22, 2021. The lead plaintiff-appellant’s reply brief was filed on January 12, 2022. Oral argument was held on March 10, 2022. On July 8, 2022, a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court order dismissing the complaint. On July 21, 2022, plaintiff-appellant filed a petition for rehearing or hearing en banc, which the court denied on August 15, 2022. On November 14, 2022, the deadline for plaintiff-appellant to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court passed without plaintiff-appellant filing a petition, finally resolving this matter in our favor.

Antitrust Class Actions

On June 5, 2020, a dental practice named Simon and Simon, PC doing business as City Smiles brought an antitrust action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated practices seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to our alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added VIP Dental Spas as a plaintiff on August 14, 2020. A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on June 29, 2024. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves.

On May 3, 2021, an individual named Misty Snow brought an antitrust action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to our alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2021 adding new plaintiffs and various state law claims. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 21, 2021. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint. A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on June 29, 2024 for issues related to Section 2 allegations. A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on September 30, 2024 for issues related to Section 1 allegations. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves.

We are currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore we cannot determine the likelihood of loss, if any, nor estimate a range of possible loss.

SDC Dispute

On August 27, 2020, we initiated a confidential arbitration proceeding against SmileDirectClub LLC (“SDC”) before the American Arbitration Association in San Jose, California. This arbitration relates to the Strategic Supply Agreement (“Supply Agreement”) entered into between the parties in 2016. The complaint alleges that SDC breached the Supply Agreement’s terms, causing damages to us in an amount to be determined. On January 19, 2021, SDC filed a counterclaim alleging that we breached the Supply Agreement. On May 3, 2022, SDC filed an additional counterclaim alleging that we breached the Supply Agreement. We deny SDC's allegations in the counterclaims and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them. The arbitration hearing on our claims and SDC’s first counterclaim was held on July 18-27, 2022 in Chicago, Illinois.

On October 27, 2022, the arbitrator issued an interim award on our claims and SDC’s first counterclaim finding that SDC breached the Supply Agreement, we did not breach the Supply Agreement, and SDC caused harm to us. Based on these findings, the arbitrator awarded us an interim award that, when confirmed, may be material to our results in the quarter reported.

On December 2, 2022, SDC filed a motion to re-open the arbitrator’s interim award in Align’s favor. We anticipate recognizing the amount ultimately realizable following confirmation of the final award.

The arbitration hearing on SDC’s second counterclaim was held on February 21-23, 2023 in Chicago, Illinois. We are currently unable to predict the outcome of SDC’s second counterclaim and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss or success nor estimate a range of possible loss or success, if any.

In addition to the above, in the ordinary course of our operations, we are involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations, and proceedings, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, patent infringement claims, government investigations, labor and employment claims, breach of contract claims, tax, and other matters. Regardless of the outcome, these proceedings can have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. Although the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and our view of these matters may change in the future as litigation and events related thereto unfold; we currently do not believe that these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.