The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) from interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. Changes to GAAP are established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) in the form of Accounting Standards Updates (“ASU’’) to the FASB’s Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”). In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation of the results of operations for the periods presented have been included. Operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year. The balance sheet at December 31, 2018, has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements at that date, but does not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements.

The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. Conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported consolidated statements of operations during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Significant estimates include estimated useful lives and potential impairment of property and equipment and intangible assets, estimate for contingent liabilities, the measurement of right-of-use assets and lease liabilities, management’s assessment of the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, estimate of fair value of share-based payments and valuation of deferred tax assets.

Notes receivable represent formal payment agreements with customers which generally arise in situations where amounts shipped and billed have aged significantly as well as the promissory note issued by Stability Biologics, LLC (“Stability’’) as part of the divestiture of Stability in 2017. The promissory note from Stability was paid in full in the three months ended September 30, 2019. The Company’s notes receivable are included in other current and long-term assets in the consolidated balance sheets and were valued taking into consideration cost of the market participant inputs, market conditions, liquidity, operating results and other qualitative factors.

Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or net realizable value, using the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) method. Inventory is tracked through raw material, work-in-process, and finished good stages as the product progresses through various production steps and stocking locations. Labor and overhead costs are absorbed through the various production processes until the work order closes. Historical yields and normal capacities are utilized in the calculation of production overhead rates. Reserves for inventory obsolescence are utilized to account for slow-moving inventory as well as inventory no longer needed due to diminished market demand.

The Company sells its products primarily to individual customers and independent distributors (collectively referred to as “customers”). In 2018 and part of 2019, the Company’s control environment was such that it created uncertainty surrounding all of its customer arrangements which affected revenue recognition under the applicable literature. The control environment allowed for the existence of extra-contractual or undocumented terms or arrangements initiated by or agreed to by the Company and other current and former members of Company management at the outset of the transactions (side agreements). Concessions were also agreed to subsequent to the initial sale (e.g. sales above established customer credit limits extended and unusually long payment terms, return or exchange rights, and contingent payment obligations) that called into question the ability to recognize revenue at the time that product was shipped to a customer.

The Company adopted ASC Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASC 606”) on January 1, 2018 by using the modified retrospective method. ASC 606 establishes principles for reporting information about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from the entity’s contracts to provide goods or services to customers. The core principle requires an entity to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration that it expects to be entitled to receive in exchange for those goods or services recognized as performance obligations are satisfied. The Company assessed the impact of the ASC 606 guidance by reviewing customer contracts and accounting policies and practices to identify differences, including identification of the contract and the evaluation of the Company’s performance obligations, transaction price, customer payments, transfer of control and principal versus agent considerations.

The Company concluded that the first three of the above criteria were not met upon shipment of product to the customer, the fourth criteria had been met and the Company acknowledges that there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether last criteria above had been met. Although the parties to the contract may have approved the contract and purchase orders in writing, the Company concluded that upon shipment of products to the customer there is not sufficient evidence that its customers were committed to perform their obligations defined in the contract due to the existence of extra-contractual or undocumented terms or arrangements (e.g., regarding payment terms, right of return, etc.). The Company could not reliably identify each party’s rights regarding the products to be transferred upon shipment of those products to customers. The Company’s sales personnel continued to make side agreements with customers which directly conflicted with the explicitly stated terms of sale. These side agreements created significant ambiguity around the rights and obligations of both parties involved in the transaction. This practice continued to result in extended payment terms and returns occurring long after the original sale was made. The Company’s business practices created an implied right for the customer to demand future, unknown, performance by the Company. As a result, each party (and in particular the Company) could not at the time of product shipment adequately determine its rights regarding the goods transferred as required by ASC 606-10-25-1. Upon shipment of product to the customer, the Company could not reliably identify the payment terms for the products it sold to customers. Although the written payment terms were known to both parties, the Company’s pervasive business practices (e.g., informal and undocumented side agreements) overrode the written payment terms and often resulted in extensions of the terms for payment. The Company’s contracts did appear to have commercial substance (i.e., the risk, timing, or amount of the Company’s future cash flows was expected to change as a result of the contract) upon fulfillment of a purchase order, as most fulfillments have eventually resulted in the Company receiving cash. Therefore, the Company concluded that this criterion appears to be met upon shipment of product to customers (i.e., fulfillment of the purchase order).

The probability that the Company would collect the consideration to which it was entitled in exchange for products shipped to the customer was questionable. In evaluating whether the collectability of an amount of consideration was probable, the Company considered the customer’s ability and intention to pay that amount of consideration when it was due. Historically, the customers’ intention to pay amounts when due was uncertain in light of the conflicting messages customers received with respect to the payment terms and rights of return and lack of adherence to credit limits. The assessment in ASC 606 is based on whether the customer has the ability and intention to pay for the product being delivered by the Company. Assessment of a customer’s ability to pay is typically done through a credit check process and the establishment of a credit limit for each customer by the Company’s accounts receivable team. Although the Company did have a process in place to establish credit limits, the evidence previously mentioned indicates that those credit limits were routinely overridden by certain sales personnel and members of management. Despite these overrides, the Company recovered the majority of its billings made in 2018. Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative evidence gathered by the Company raised considerable doubt as to the collectability of its billings at the time of shipment, but this evidence was not persuasive enough for the Company to conclude that collectability was not probable. As a result of the considerations outlined above, the Company determined that it did not meet the criteria necessary for its revenue arrangements to qualify as “contracts” under the requirements of ASC 606 (i.e., these arrangements did not pass the Step 1 Criteria of the revenue recognition model).

The Company’s inability to fulfill these criteria was due to uncertainties of contractual adjustments with customers created by a combination of an inappropriate tone at the top and extra-contractual arrangements. Consequently, as of the date of the Company’s adoption of ASC 606 effective January 1, 2018 and for the remainder of the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company concluded that it did not meet the Step 1 Criteria upon physical delivery of the product. Subsequent to the delivery of product, uncertainties surrounding contractual adjustment were not resolved until either: (1) the customer returned the product prior to payment; or (2) the Company received payment from the customer. At that point, the Company determined that an accounting contract existed and the performance obligations of the Company to deliver product and the customer to pay for the product were satisfied. The Company determined the transaction price of its contracts to equal the amount of consideration received from customers less the amount expected to be refunded or credited to customers, which is recognized as a refund liability that is updated at the end of each reporting period for changes in circumstances. The refund liability is included within accrued expenses in our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

We continued to assess new and existing contracts throughout 2019 to determine if the Step 1 Criteria noted above for the determination of a contract under ASC 606 were met for new contracts at the outset of a sales transaction (i.e., upon shipment of product) or for existing contracts at some point within 2019 when all the terms of the arrangement would have been known. Until it was determined if the Step 1 Criteria had been met, revenue recognition continued to be deferred consistent with the assessment for the year ended December 31, 2018.

As further discussed above, the primary factors contributing to the determination in prior periods that the Step 1 Criteria had not been met were the inappropriate tone at the top and the existence of pervasive extra-contractual or undocumented terms or arrangements. These prior business practices and the lack of transparency surrounding them created a systemically implied right for customers to demand future and unknown performance by us. Although some of the former executives were employed by us only through June 2018, we determined that based on the impact of the prior tone at the top, the continued internal sales force strategy and the existing customer base’s continued expectations (based on past practice), there would be flexibility with respect to arrangement terms even after delivery of the product so pervasive that all customer arrangements continued to be subject to uncertain modification of terms into 2019.

After identifying the primary factors contributing to the lack of knowledge regarding our customer contractual terms, we began implementing changes in mid-2018 to remediate the pervasive weaknesses in the control environment, followed by gradually implementing measures to empower our compliance, legal, and accounting departments; educate our sales force on appropriate business practices; and communicate our revised terms of sale to customers. We assessed our efforts throughout 2019 to determine when, if at any point, the factors contributing to the inability to satisfy the Step 1 Criteria were sufficiently addressed such that the Step 1 Criteria were met at the time of physical delivery to the customer. Determining when these conditions were effectively satisfied was a matter of judgment; however, we determined that adequate knowledge of the contractual arrangements with our customers did exist in 2019 for new and certain existing arrangements. We did note that there is no single determinative change that overcame the pervasive challenges noted above, but rather an accumulation of efforts that taken together, resulted in sufficient knowledge of contractual relationships both internally and externally with our customers.

To address the tone at the top issues, we noted that proper remediation involved not only the removal of members of management who were setting an inappropriate tone but also the establishment of new management throughout the organization that emphasized a commitment to integrity, ethical values and transparency and have that reinforcement for a sustained period of time. The changes made to management positions throughout the organization and the resulting organization behavior changes were assessed to have been sufficiently addressed by the end of the second quarter of 2019.

To determine when we had either eliminated or had sufficient knowledge to identify any extra-contractual arrangements, we noted that a key factor contributing to our historical lack of visibility into the arrangements with our customers was the failure to adhere to credit limits, payment terms and return policies. The establishment of additional controls and the emphasis on adherence to our existing policies and controls was an iterative process that continued through the first two quarters of 2019. Additional factors contributing to the increased visibility into our contractual arrangements involved further education and training of the sales personnel regarding our terms and conditions as well as monitoring of the sales personnel and customers for compliance with the contractual arrangements. We implemented a disciplined approach to educating the sales personnel regarding the prior practices that were considered unacceptable, ensuring they were knowledgeable regarding current terms and conditions and implementing an open dialogue with the credit and collections department. Monitoring of the customer base was accomplished through a variety of measures including, but not limited to, analysis of payments made within the original terms, levels of returns post-shipment, and various continued communication with the customer account representatives by members of our credit and collections department. During the third quarter of 2019, management determined that these efforts with the sales personnel and the external customers had been in place for a sufficient period of time to provide us an understanding of its contractual arrangements with customers.

We also reassessed whether the Step 1 Criteria had been met for all shipments of product where payment had not been received as of September 30, 2019. While the measures summarized above provided significant evidence necessary to understand the terms of our contractual arrangements with our customers, certain of these customers continued to exhibit behaviors that resulted in extended periods until cash collection. Such delays in collection suggested that uncertainty regarding extracontractual arrangements may continue, particularly as it relates to payment terms. As a result, we concluded the following existing arrangements, which remained unpaid at September 30, 2019.

Under ASC 606, we recognize revenue following the five-step model: (i) identify the contract with a customer (the Step 1 Criteria); (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. As noted above, beginning October 1, 2019, we determined that we had met the Step 1 Criteria for new and certain existing arrangements. We also determined that the performance obligation was met upon delivery of the product to the customer, or at the time the product is implanted for products on consignment, at which point we determined we will collect the consideration we are entitled to in exchange for the product transferred to the customer. As a result, we recognize as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when (or as) the performance obligation is satisfied, generally upon shipment of the product to the customer. The nature of our contracts gives rise to certain types of variable consideration, including rebates and other discounts. We include estimated amounts of variable consideration in the transaction price to the extent that it is probable there will not be a significant reversal of revenue. Estimates are based on historical or anticipated performance and represent our best judgment at the time of sale. We have consignment agreements with several customers and distributors which allow us to better market our products by moving them closer to the end user. We determined that we have fulfilled our performance obligation once control of the product has been delivered to the customer, which occurs simultaneously with the product being implanted.

We act as the principal in all of our customer arrangements and therefore record revenue on a gross basis. Shipping is considered immaterial in the context of the overall customer arrangement, and damages or loss of goods in transit are rare. Therefore, shipping is not deemed a separately recognized performance obligation and we have elected to treat shipping costs as activities to fulfill the promise to transfer the product. We maintain a returns policy that allows our customers to return product that is consigned, damaged or non-conforming, ordered in error, or due to a recall. The estimate of the provision for returns is based upon historical experience with actual returns. Our payment terms for customers are typically 30 to 60 days from receipt of title of the goods.

The Company acts as the principal in all of its customer arrangements and therefore records revenue on a gross basis. Shipping is considered immaterial in the context of the overall customer arrangement, and damages or loss of goods in transit are rare. Therefore, shipping is not deemed a separately recognized performance obligation. The Company maintains a returns policy that allows its customers to return product that is consigned, damaged or non-conforming, ordered in error, or due to a recall. The estimate of the provision for returns is based upon historical experience with actual returns. The Company’s payment terms for customers are typically 30 to 60 days from receipt of title of the goods.

Based on the assessment noted above, the Company concluded that through the first two quarters of 2019, the pattern of revenue recognition under ASC 606 remained the same as the application for the year ended December 31, 2018; that is, revenue was deferred until the product was paid for or returned. In order to account for the determination that the Step 1 Criteria had been met during the third quarter of 2019, for certain existing customer arrangements, the Company recorded the following (in thousands):



	Amounts Invoiced and Not Collected			Deferred Cost of Sales
Amounts prior to Transition Adjustment	$	48,883		$	6,415
Revenue recognized related to amounts invoiced and not collected at September 30, 2019:
Transition Adjustment during the three months ended September 30, 2019	(21,385		)	(2,565		)
Write-off of customer contracts where collection is no longer reasonably assured (a)	(10,273		)	(1,438		)
Amounts as of September 30, 2019	$	17,225		$	2,412
(a) The Company determined that for approximately $10.3 million of existing contracts where payment had not been received, collection was no longer reasonably assured. As a result, $1.4 million of deferred cost of sales relating to these customers was written off. Any future collections relating to these customer contracts will be recorded as revenue at the time payment is received.

The Company sells to Group Purchasing Organization (“GPO”) members who transact directly with the Company at GPO-agreed pricing. GPOs are funded by administrative fees that are paid by the Company. These fees are set as a percentage of the purchase volume, which is typically 3% of sales made to the GPO members. Prior to adoption of ASC 606, for all periods presented prior to January 1, 2018, the Company presented the administrative fees paid to GPOs as a reduction of revenues because the benefit received by the Company in exchange for the GPO fees was not sufficiently separable from the GPO member’s purchase of the Company’s products. Upon adoption of ASC 606, the Company concluded that although it benefited from the access that a GPO provides to its members, this benefit was neither distinct from other promises in the Company’s contracts with GPOs nor was the benefit separable from the sale of goods by the Company to the end customer. Therefore, the Company continued presenting fees paid to GPOs as a reduction of product revenues.

Cost of sales includes all costs directly related to bringing the Company’s products to their final selling destination. Amounts include direct and indirect costs to manufacture products including raw materials, personnel costs and direct overhead expenses necessary to convert collected tissues into finished goods, product testing costs, quality assurance costs, facility costs associated with the Company’s manufacturing and warehouse facilities, depreciation, freight charges, costs to operate equipment and other shipping and handling costs for products shipped to customers.

Prior to the Transition, deferred cost of sales resulted from transactions where title to inventory transferred from the Company to the customer, but for which all revenue recognition criteria have not yet been met. Once all revenue recognition criteria have been met, the revenue and associated cost of sales is recognized. These amounts have been recorded within other current assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet in the amounts of $2.4 million and $4.3 million, as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018.

Operating lease assets represent the Company’s right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent the Company’s obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. Operating lease assets and liabilities are recognized at the lease commencement date based on the estimated present value of lease payments over the lease term. The Company uses the estimated incremental borrowing rate in determining the present value of lease payments. Variable components of the lease payments such as fair market value adjustments, utilities, and maintenance costs are expensed as incurred and not included in determining the present value of lease liabilities, which will include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that the Company will exercise that option. As an accounting policy election, the Company excludes short-term leases having initial terms of 12 months or fewer. Lease expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The Company continues to

The Company incurs certain legal and related costs in connection with patent applications for tissue-based products and processes. The Company capitalizes such costs to be amortized over the expected life of the patent to the extent that an economic benefit is anticipated from the resulting patent or alternative future use is available to the Company and are included in Intangible Assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company capitalized approximately $0.4 million and $0.5 million of patent costs during the first nine months of 2019 and 2018, respectively.

In February 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)”, which amended the guidance on accounting for leases. The FASB issued this update to increase transparency and comparability among organizations. This update requires the recognition of lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and the disclosure of key information about leasing arrangements. The Company adopted the ASU effective January 1, 2019 using the additional (optional) approach, in accordance with ASU 2018-11 Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements. The Company initially recorded a right of use asset and lease liability of $4.3 million, net of the $0.9 million rent credit, and $5.2 million, in Right of use asset, Other current liabilities and Other liabilities for the non-current portion, respectively. There was no effect on opening retained earnings, and the Company continues to account for leases in the prior period financial statements under ASC Topic 840.

In adopting the new lease standard, the Company elected the package of practical expedients permitted under the adoption of the new standard, which allowed the Company to account for existing leases under their current classification, as well as omit any new costs classified as initial direct costs, under the new standard. The Company also elected the practical expedient allowing an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset, to account for separate lease and non-lease components as a single lease component. Please see Note 6 for additional information on leases.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments”. The update addresses eight specific cash flow issues with the objective of reducing the existing diversity in practice. This ASU is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. The amendments in this update may be applied retrospectively or prospectively and early adoption is permitted. The Company adopted this standard as of January 1, 2018 and applied the ASU retrospectively for all periods presented.

In February 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-02, “Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220)”, to address certain income tax effects in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”) resulting from the tax reform enacted in 2017. The amended guidance provides an option to reclassify tax effects within AOCI to retained earnings in the period in which the effect of the tax reform is recorded. The amendments were effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods. The Company has adopted this ASU as of January 1, 2019, which did not have any impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition as there were no balances in AOCI that are tax effected.

In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-07, “Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Non-employee Share-Based Payment Accounting” (“ASU 2018-07”), which simplifies the accounting for share-based payments to non-employees by aligning it with the accounting for share-based payments to employees, with certain exceptions. Under the new guidance, the measurement of equity-classified nonemployee awards will be fixed at the grant date. ASU 2018-07 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018 and early adoption was permitted. The Company adopted the new standard on January 1, 2019. The adoption of ASU 2018-07 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, “Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” that introduces a new model for recognizing credit losses on financial instruments based on an estimate of current expected credit losses. This includes accounts receivable, trade receivables, loans, held-to-maturity debt securities, net investments in leases and certain off-balance sheet credit exposures. The guidance also modifies the impairment model for available-for-sale debt securities. This ASU is effective for MiMedx and all public filers which do not qualify as smaller reporting companies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. The Company does not expect adoption to materially affect the consolidated financial statements.

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-13, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Disclosure Framework-Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement” (“ASU 2018-13”), which changes the fair value measurement disclosure requirements of ASC 820 “Fair Value Measurement,” based on the concepts in the FASB Concepts Statement, Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting-Chapter 8: “Notes to Financial Statements,” including consideration of costs and benefits. The ASU 2018-13 is effective for all entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted for any eliminated or modified disclosures upon issuance of ASU 2018-13. The Company is evaluating the impact the adoption of ASU 2018-13 will have on its consolidated financial statements.