CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS	24. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS Litigation Litigation resulting from third party claims has been, and may be, costly and time-consuming and could divert the attention of management and key personnel from our business operations. Although we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against any pending claims, and future claims that may occur, we cannot assure that we will succeed in appealing and defending any of these claims and that judgments will not be upheld against us. If we are unsuccessful in our appeal and defense of these claims or unable to settle the claims in a manner satisfactory to us, we may be faced with significant loss of intellectual property rights that could have a material adverse effect on the Company and its financial condition. Claims by CardiAQ in Germany On June 23, 2014, Edwards Lifesciences CardiAQ LLC (“CardiAQ”) filed a complaint against Neovasc in Munich, Germany (the “German Court”) requesting that Neovasc assign its right to one of its European patent applications to CardiAQ. After a hearing held on December 14, 2016, the German Court rendered its decision on June 16, 2017, granting co-ownership of the European patent application to CardiAQ but denying their claim for full entitlement. On July 14, 2017, Neovasc filed a notice of appeal against the German Court’s decision with the Appeals Court of Munich (the ‘Appeals Court’). On July 20, 2017, CardiAQ filed a notice of appeal with the same court. The decision of the Appeals Court of Munich was rendered on March 21, 2019, wherein it amended the decision of the German Court and dismissed the complaint of CardiAQ in full. On March 30, 2020, the German Supreme Court granted CardiAQ leave to appeal the Appeals Court decision and at a hearing held on August 4, 2020 the German Supreme Court set aside the prior decision of the Appeals Court and remanded the matter back to the Appeals Court for a new hearing and decision.The hearing at the Appeals Court was held on February 25, 2021. On May 20, 2021, the Appeals Court has upheld the first instance judgment of the German Court of June 16, 2017, in which the court had found that CardiAQ had contributed in part to the invention of the Tiara and awarded to CardiAQ co-entitlement rights to the disputed Tiara European patent application. There are no monetary awards associated with these matters (except for a decision on the statutory costs of the proceedings) and no damages award was recognized. Regarding the statutory costs of the proceedings, both parties bear 50% of the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Appeals Court. Neovasc bears the costs of the 2^nd appeal proceedings before the German Supreme Court and 50% of the court fees of the first instance proceedings. Neovasc has not appealed this decision to preserve capital and move forward with our new strategic activities. The decision is now final. Claims by CardiAQ in the United States On March 24, 2017, CardiAQ filed a related lawsuit in the in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Court”), asserting two claims for correction of patent inventorship as to Neovasc’s U.S. Patents Nos. 9,241,790 and 9,248,014. On October 4, 2017, CardiAQ amended its pleading to add a third claim for correction of patent inventorship as to Neovasc’s U.S. Patent No. 9,770,329. The lawsuit did not seek money damages and would not have prevented the Company from practicing these patents. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on November 16, 2017, and the Court denied this motion on September 28, 2018. On April 17, 2019, the Company resolved the three claims for correction of patent inventorship and, without reaching conclusion on the merits of the claims, the parties agreed to the correction of patent inventorship and added co-inventors to the three patents in question. Each party will bear its own costs. There were no monetary awards associated with these matters and no damages award was recognized. 24. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS (continued) Other Matters By way of Amended Statement of Claim in Federal Court of Canada Action T-1831-16 (the “Action”), Neovasc Inc. and Neovasc Tiara Inc. (the “Neovasc Defendants”) were added as defendants to an existing action commenced by Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. and Edwards Lifesciences (Canada) Inc. (collectively the “Edwards Plaintiffs”) against Livanova Canada Corp., Livanova PLC, Boston Scientific and Boston Scientific Ltd. (collectively, the “BSC/Livanova Defendants”). The Action was first filed in October 2016 and first concerned an allegation by the Edwards Plaintiffs that the manufacturing, assembly, use, sale and export of the Lotus Aortic Valve devices by the BSC/Livanova Defendants infringes on the Edwards Plaintiffs’ patents. In February 2017, the Neovasc Defendants were added to the Edwards Plaintiffs’ claim making related allegations. On January 22, 2019, the Company announced that pursuant to a settlement reached with the Edwards Plaintiffs, the patent infringement action that the Edwards Plaintiffs had previously commenced in the Federal Court of Canada against the Neovasc Defendants, Boston Scientific and Livanova, has been dismissed on a no-costs basis. No damages award was recognized. On August 3, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a collaboration and licensing agreement with Penn Medicine and the Gorman Cardiovascular Research Group at the University of Pennsylvania (collectively, “UPenn”), which resolved certain potential claims against the Company that had been previously disclosed. The collaboration and licensing agreement with UPenn contemplates certain fees being paid by Neovasc to UPenn, including fees in installments totaling $2.65 million over the three years following the agreement’s execution. In addition, Neovasc agreed to pay UPenn a royalty of 1.0-1.5% on the annual net sales of the Tiara following the first commercial sale of the Tiara. Also contained in the collaboration and licensing agreement are buy-out clauses that allow Neovasc, or an acquirer of Neovasc or the Tiara assets, to buy out these royalty obligations. As part of the collaboration and licensing agreement, certain potential claims against the Neovasc Defendants were resolved. When the Company assesses that it is more likely that a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period and that the possibility of an outflow of economic resources embodying economic benefits is probable, a provision is recognized and contingent liability disclosure is required. The Company has not accrued for any future royalty payments in the settlement agreement with UPenn as the amounts are undeterminable at this time. On September 7, 2018, Endovalve Inc. and Micro Interventional Devices, Inc. (collectively, “Endovalve”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Neovasc Defendants, alleging claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and unfair competition. Endovalve alleged that it was a former customer of Neovasc Inc., and that the Neovasc Defendants improperly used trade secrets in the development of Tiara. The complaint sought injunctive relief, money damages, and attorneys’ fees. On February 20, 2019, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Endovalve. The settlement agreement with Endovalve contemplates certain fees being paid by Neovasc to Endovalve, including settlement fees in installments totaling $3 million over the two and a half years following the agreement’s execution. In addition, Neovasc agreed to pay Endovalve a royalty of 1.3% on the annual net sales of the Tiara following the first commercial sale of the Tiara. Also contained in the settlement agreement are buy-out clauses that allow Neovasc, or an acquirer of Neovasc or the Tiara assets, to buy out these royalty obligations. As part of the settlement agreement, the claims against the Neovasc Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. When the Company assesses that it is more likely that a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period and that the possibility of an outflow of economic resources embodying economic benefits is probable, a provision is recognized and contingent liability disclosure is required. The Company has not accrued for any future royalty payments in the settlement agreement with Endovalve as the amounts are undeterminable at this time. 24. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS (continued) Shareholder Litigation On November 5, 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Neovasc Inc. (“Neovasc”), Fred Colen, Neovasc’s CEO, and Christopher Clark, Neovasc’s CFO: Gonzalez v. Neovasc Inc., et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-09313 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Gonzalez Action”). The complaint in the Gonzalez Action purports to bring suit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc securities between November 1, 2019 and October 27, 2020, inclusive. On November 25, 2020, a second putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Neovasc and Messrs. Colen and Clark: Siple v. Neovasc Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09948 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Siple Action”). The complaint in the Siple Action purports to bring suit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc securities between October 10, 2018 and October 27, 2020, inclusive. The complaints in both the Gonzalez Action and the Siple Action contain similar allegations that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Neovasc’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaints’ allegations relate to the premarket approval process with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for Neovasc’s Reducer medical device for the treatment of refractory angina. Both complaints assert the same two causes of action: (i) a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants; and (ii) a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Messrs. Colen and Clark. On January 26, 2021, the court issued an order consolidating the Gonzalez Action and the Siple Action under a new case style: In re Neovasc Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 7:20-cv-09313 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Consolidated Action”). The order also appointed Pratap Golla as Lead Plaintiff and the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer LLC as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class in the Consolidated Action. The order further directed Lead Plaintiff to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Action. On March 19, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint names Neovasc, Messrs. Colen and Clark, Bill Little, and Shmuel Banai as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc securities between October 10, 2018 and January 15, 2021, inclusive. The Consolidated Amended Complaint contains allegations similar to the complaints in the Gonzalez Action and the Siple Action and asserts the same two causes of action: (i) a violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants; and (ii) a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Messrs. Colen, Clark, Little, and Banai. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint was served on June 14, 2021. On February, 1, 2022, at the conclusion of oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Consolidated Amended Complaint was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to amend.

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS

24. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS

Litigation

Litigation resulting from third party claims has been, and may be, costly and time-consuming and could divert the attention of management and key personnel from our business operations. Although we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against any pending claims, and future claims that may occur, we cannot assure that we will succeed in appealing and defending any of these claims and that judgments will not be upheld against us. If we are unsuccessful in our appeal and defense of these claims or unable to settle the claims in a manner satisfactory to us, we may be faced with significant loss of intellectual property rights that could have a material adverse effect on the Company and its financial condition.

Claims by CardiAQ in Germany

On June 23, 2014, Edwards Lifesciences CardiAQ LLC (“CardiAQ”) filed a complaint against Neovasc in Munich, Germany (the “German Court”) requesting that Neovasc assign its right to one of its European patent applications to CardiAQ. After a hearing held on December 14, 2016, the German Court rendered its decision on June 16, 2017, granting co-ownership of the European patent application to CardiAQ but denying their claim for full entitlement. On July 14, 2017, Neovasc filed a notice of appeal against the German Court’s decision with the Appeals Court of Munich (the ‘Appeals Court’). On July 20, 2017, CardiAQ filed a notice of appeal with the same court. The decision of the Appeals Court of Munich was rendered on March 21, 2019, wherein it amended the decision of the German Court and dismissed the complaint of CardiAQ in full. On March 30, 2020, the German Supreme Court granted CardiAQ leave to appeal the Appeals Court decision and at a hearing held on August 4, 2020 the German Supreme Court set aside the prior decision of the Appeals Court and remanded the matter back to the Appeals Court for a new hearing and decision.The hearing at the Appeals Court was held on February 25, 2021.

On May 20, 2021, the Appeals Court has upheld the first instance judgment of the German Court of June 16, 2017, in which the court had found that CardiAQ had contributed in part to the invention of the Tiara and awarded to CardiAQ co-entitlement rights to the disputed Tiara European patent application. There are no monetary awards associated with these matters (except for a decision on the statutory costs of the proceedings) and no damages award was recognized. Regarding the statutory costs of the proceedings, both parties bear 50% of the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Appeals Court. Neovasc bears the costs of the 2^nd appeal proceedings before the German Supreme Court and 50% of the court fees of the first instance proceedings. Neovasc has not appealed this decision to preserve capital and move forward with our new strategic activities. The decision is now final.

Claims by CardiAQ in the United States

On March 24, 2017, CardiAQ filed a related lawsuit in the in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Court”), asserting two claims for correction of patent inventorship as to Neovasc’s U.S. Patents Nos. 9,241,790 and 9,248,014. On October 4, 2017, CardiAQ amended its pleading to add a third claim for correction of patent inventorship as to Neovasc’s U.S. Patent No. 9,770,329. The lawsuit did not seek money damages and would not have prevented the Company from practicing these patents. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on November 16, 2017, and the Court denied this motion on September 28, 2018. On April 17, 2019, the Company resolved the three claims for correction of patent inventorship and, without reaching conclusion on the merits of the claims, the parties agreed to the correction of patent inventorship and added co-inventors to the three patents in question. Each party will bear its own costs. There were no monetary awards associated with these matters and no damages award was recognized.

24. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS (continued)

Other Matters

By way of Amended Statement of Claim in Federal Court of Canada Action T-1831-16 (the “Action”), Neovasc Inc. and Neovasc Tiara Inc. (the “Neovasc Defendants”) were added as defendants to an existing action commenced by Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. and Edwards Lifesciences (Canada) Inc. (collectively the “Edwards Plaintiffs”) against Livanova Canada Corp., Livanova PLC, Boston Scientific and Boston Scientific Ltd. (collectively, the “BSC/Livanova Defendants”). The Action was first filed in October 2016 and first concerned an allegation by the Edwards Plaintiffs that the manufacturing, assembly, use, sale and export of the Lotus Aortic Valve devices by the BSC/Livanova Defendants infringes on the Edwards Plaintiffs’ patents. In February 2017, the Neovasc Defendants were added to the Edwards Plaintiffs’ claim making related allegations. On January 22, 2019, the Company announced that pursuant to a settlement reached with the Edwards Plaintiffs, the patent infringement action that the Edwards Plaintiffs had previously commenced in the Federal Court of Canada against the Neovasc Defendants, Boston Scientific and Livanova, has been dismissed on a no-costs basis. No damages award was recognized.

On August 3, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a collaboration and licensing agreement with Penn Medicine and the Gorman Cardiovascular Research Group at the University of Pennsylvania (collectively, “UPenn”), which resolved certain potential claims against the Company that had been previously disclosed. The collaboration and licensing agreement with UPenn contemplates certain fees being paid by Neovasc to UPenn, including fees in installments totaling $2.65 million over the three years following the agreement’s execution. In addition, Neovasc agreed to pay UPenn a royalty of 1.0-1.5% on the annual net sales of the Tiara following the first commercial sale of the Tiara. Also contained in the collaboration and licensing agreement are buy-out clauses that allow Neovasc, or an acquirer of Neovasc or the Tiara assets, to buy out these royalty obligations. As part of the collaboration and licensing agreement, certain potential claims against the Neovasc Defendants were resolved.

When the Company assesses that it is more likely that a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period and that the possibility of an outflow of economic resources embodying economic benefits is probable, a provision is recognized and contingent liability disclosure is required. The Company has not accrued for any future royalty payments in the settlement agreement with UPenn as the amounts are undeterminable at this time.

On September 7, 2018, Endovalve Inc. and Micro Interventional Devices, Inc. (collectively, “Endovalve”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Neovasc Defendants, alleging claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and unfair competition. Endovalve alleged that it was a former customer of Neovasc Inc., and that the Neovasc Defendants improperly used trade secrets in the development of Tiara. The complaint sought injunctive relief, money damages, and attorneys’ fees. On February 20, 2019, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Endovalve. The settlement agreement with Endovalve contemplates certain fees being paid by Neovasc to Endovalve, including settlement fees in installments totaling $3 million over the two and a half years following the agreement’s execution. In addition, Neovasc agreed to pay Endovalve a royalty of 1.3% on the annual net sales of the Tiara following the first commercial sale of the Tiara. Also contained in the settlement agreement are buy-out clauses that allow Neovasc, or an acquirer of Neovasc or the Tiara assets, to buy out these royalty obligations. As part of the settlement agreement, the claims against the Neovasc Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

When the Company assesses that it is more likely that a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period and that the possibility of an outflow of economic resources embodying economic benefits is probable, a provision is recognized and contingent liability disclosure is required. The Company has not accrued for any future royalty payments in the settlement agreement with Endovalve as the amounts are undeterminable at this time.

24. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS (continued)

Shareholder Litigation

On November 5, 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Neovasc Inc. (“Neovasc”), Fred Colen, Neovasc’s CEO, and Christopher Clark, Neovasc’s CFO: Gonzalez v. Neovasc Inc., et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-09313 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Gonzalez Action”). The complaint in the Gonzalez Action purports to bring suit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc securities between November 1, 2019 and October 27, 2020, inclusive. On November 25, 2020, a second putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Neovasc and Messrs. Colen and Clark: Siple v. Neovasc Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09948 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Siple Action”). The complaint in the Siple Action purports to bring suit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc securities between October 10, 2018 and October 27, 2020, inclusive.

The complaints in both the Gonzalez Action and the Siple Action contain similar allegations that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Neovasc’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaints’ allegations relate to the premarket approval process with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for Neovasc’s Reducer medical device for the treatment of refractory angina. Both complaints assert the same two causes of action: (i) a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants; and (ii) a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Messrs. Colen and Clark.

On January 26, 2021, the court issued an order consolidating the Gonzalez Action and the Siple Action under a new case style: In re Neovasc Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 7:20-cv-09313 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Consolidated Action”). The order also appointed Pratap Golla as Lead Plaintiff and the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer LLC as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class in the Consolidated Action. The order further directed Lead Plaintiff to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Action. On March 19, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint names Neovasc, Messrs. Colen and Clark, Bill Little, and Shmuel Banai as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc securities between October 10, 2018 and January 15, 2021, inclusive. The Consolidated Amended Complaint contains allegations similar to the complaints in the Gonzalez Action and the Siple Action and asserts the same two causes of action: (i) a violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants; and (ii) a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Messrs. Colen, Clark, Little, and Banai.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint was served on June 14, 2021. On February, 1, 2022, at the conclusion of oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Consolidated Amended Complaint was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to amend.