XML 53 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.19.3.a.u2
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Purchase Obligations
In the ordinary course of business, the Company issues purchase orders based on its current manufacturing needs. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had non-cancelable purchase commitments of $65.9 million, of which $63.8 million are expected to be paid within the next twelve months. 
Legal Proceedings
The Company is currently involved in various legal proceedings. As required under ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company accrues for contingencies when it believes that a loss is probable and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. The Company has not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described below based on its belief that any potential loss, while reasonably possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal proceedings pending against it. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of this contingency or because of the diversion of management’s attention and the creation of significant expenses.
On January 10, 2018, a lawsuit was filed against a number of individuals, governmental agencies, and corporate entities, including the Company and one of its former subsidiaries, Aesynt Incorporated (“Aesynt”), which, through a series of mergers, has been merged into the Company, in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia, captioned Ruth Ann Warner, as Guardian of Jonathan James Brewster Warner v. Centra Health, Inc., et al., Case No. CL18-152-1. The complaint sought monetary recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in addition to certain declaratory relief based upon, as against the individuals, governmental agencies, and corporate entities other than the Company and Aesynt, allegations of the use of excessive force, unlawful detention, false imprisonment, battery, simple and gross negligence and negligent hiring, detention, and training; and, as against the Company and Aesynt, claims of product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties. The Company and Aesynt were never served with the complaint. Upon motion of the plaintiff, the Court issued an order on February 21, 2019 nonsuiting (dismissing) the case without prejudice. On August 21, 2019, a new lawsuit was filed against the Company and Aesynt, in the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia, captioned Ruth Ann Warner, as Guardian of Jonathan James Brewster Warner v. Aesynt Incorporated, et al., Case No CL19-1301. The complaint seeks monetary recovery of damages based upon claims of product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties. The Company and Aesynt have not been served with the complaint. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
On June 6, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against a customer of the Company, the customer’s parent company, and two vendors of medication dispensing systems, one of which is the Company, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, captioned Yana Mazya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Omnicell, Inc. and Becton Dickinson, Case No. 2018-CH-07161. The complaint sought class certification, monetary damages in the form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to allegations of violation of BIPA and of negligence by the defendants. The complaint was served on the Company on June 15, 2018. The Company’s obligation to respond to the complaint was held in abeyance pending a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in a separate case involving BIPA issues. The Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision in that case on January 25, 2019. On April 10, 2019, subsequent to the Court’s issuance of an order granting the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a second named plaintiff and an affiliate of the Company’s customer as an additional defendant and, in addition to making other modifications to the complaint, removing the separate cause of action directed to negligence. The Court established a deadline of May 13, 2019 for the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. On May 10, 2019, defendants Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, and Northwestern Memorial Hospital removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Subsequently, on May 17, 2019, the Company and the other defendants in the case each filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The Court then entered an order, on June 19, 2019, denying plaintiffs’ motion to remand, granting defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to the additionally-named plaintiff, and continuing the motions to dismiss with respect to the originally-named plaintiff. On July 2, 2019, the Court entered an order remanding the case to state court and denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss without prejudice to renewal of the motions in state court. On September 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the Company from the case without prejudice. The motion was granted by order of the Court dated October 10, 2019 and, as a result, the Company has been finally dismissed from the case without prejudice to plaintiff refiling the action.
A declaratory judgment action was filed against the Company, on August 30, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Zurich American Insurance Company; American Guarantee & Liability Company v. Omnicell, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-CV-05345. The complaint seeks a declaration that the plaintiffs have no duty to defend or indemnify the Company in connection with the underlying litigation, the Yana Mazya, et al. v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, et al., Case No. 2018-CH-07161 pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (“Mazya Action”), disclosed above, together with claims for reimbursement and unjust enrichment relating to the defense of the Mazya Action in the form of attorneys’ fees and other related costs. The Company has not responded to the complaint. On February 12, 2019, the Court stayed the action pending the outcome of the Mazya Action and administratively closed the case. On October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice advising the Court of the dismissal of the Company from the Mazya Action and requesting that the Court lift the stay in the case and set dates for filing a responsive pleading by the Company and initial discovery and scheduling matters. By order dated November 13, 2019, the Court (i) lifted the stay in the case, (ii) set a case management conference for February 5, 2020, and (iii) ordered the parties to file a joint case management statement by January 29, 2020. The parties subsequently reached a settlement of the case in principle and the Court, after notice of the parties, continued the case management conference until April 29, 2020 and ordered the parties to file a joint case management statement by April 22, 2020. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5, 2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the alternative, negligent violation of BIPA, and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to allegations of violation of BIPA by the Company. The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate the case with the Mazya Action. The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion, without prejudice, as being moot in view of the Company’s dismissal from the Mazya Action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31, 2019. The motion to dismiss is fully-briefed and the Court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for March 16, 2020. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
On July 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, captioned Bursick v. Omnicell, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-04150, alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements beginning in October 2018 regarding revenue recognition, customer concerns about implementation issues, and a purported need to write off inventory. The plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On October 24, 2019, Frank Bursick was appointed Lead Plaintiff. On December 5, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of this action as to all defendants, instead of filing an amended complaint. This action is now concluded.
In August 2019, the Company received a letter from the Denver office of the SEC seeking information related to the Company’s accounting processes and procedures. The Company responded and fully cooperated with the SEC. On February 12, 2020, the Company received a letter from the SEC confirming that it has concluded its investigation and that the SEC does not intend to recommend any enforcement action against the Company.
Guarantees
As permitted under Delaware law and the Company’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws, the Company has agreed to indemnify its directors and officers against certain losses that they may suffer by reason of the fact that such persons are, were or become its directors or officers. The term of the indemnification period is for the director’s or officer’s lifetime and there is no limit on the potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. The Company has purchased a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy that may enable it to recover a portion of any future payments that it may be required to make under these indemnification agreements. Assuming the applicability of coverage and the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, the Company believes it is unlikely that the Company will be required to pay any material amounts pursuant to these indemnification obligations. However, no assurances can be given that the insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability or amount of coverage without expensive and time-consuming litigation against the insurers.
Additionally, the Company undertakes indemnification obligations in its ordinary course of business in connection with, among other things, the licensing of its products and the provision of its support services. In the ordinary course of the Company’s business, the Company has in the past and may in the future agree to indemnify another party, generally its business affiliates or customers, against certain losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with various types of claims, which may include, without limitation, claims of intellectual property infringement, certain tax liabilities, its gross negligence or intentional acts in the performance of support services and violations of laws. The term of these indemnification obligations is generally perpetual. In general, the Company attempts to limit the maximum potential amount of future payments that it may be required to make under these indemnification obligations to the amounts paid to it by a customer, but in some
cases the obligation may not be so limited. In addition, the Company has in the past and may in the future warrant to its customers that its products will conform to functional specifications for a limited period of time following the date of installation (generally not exceeding 30 days) or that its software media is free from material defects. Sales contracts for certain of the Company’s medication packaging systems often include limited warranties for up to six months, but the periodic activity and ending warranty balances the Company records have historically been immaterial.
From time to time, the Company may also warrant that its professional services will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner or in a professional manner consistent with industry standards. The Company generally seeks to disclaim most warranties, including any implied or statutory warranties such as warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title, quality and non-infringement, as well as any liability with respect to incidental, consequential, special, exemplary, punitive or similar damages. In some states, such disclaimers may not be enforceable. If necessary, the Company would provide for the estimated cost of product and service warranties based on specific warranty claims and claim history. The Company has not been subject to any significant claims for such losses and has not incurred any material costs in defending or settling claims related to these indemnification obligations. Accordingly, the Company believes it is unlikely that the Company will be required to pay any material amounts pursuant to these indemnification obligations or potential warranty claims and, therefore, no material liabilities have been recorded for such indemnification obligations as of December 31, 2019 and 2018.