| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Solventum is involved in numerous claims and lawsuits, principally in the United States, and regulatory proceedings worldwide. These claims, lawsuits and proceedings relate to matters including, but not limited to, product liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold, including products made by the Health Care Business Group at 3M), intellectual property, commercial, antitrust, federal healthcare program related laws and regulations, such as the False Claims Act and anti-kickback laws in the United States and other jurisdictions. Unless otherwise stated, Solventum is vigorously defending all such litigation and proceedings. From time to time, Solventum also receives subpoenas, investigative demands or requests for information from various government agencies in the United States and foreign countries. Solventum generally responds in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner. These responses sometimes require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Such requests can also lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of administrative, civil, or criminal legal proceedings against Solventum and others, as well as to settlements. The outcomes of legal proceedings and regulatory matters are often difficult to predict. Any determination that the Company’s operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance with applicable laws or regulations could result in the imposition of fines, civil or criminal penalties, and equitable remedies, including disgorgement, suspension or debarment or injunctive relief. Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities Related to Legal Proceedings Many lawsuits and claims involve highly complex issues relating to causation, scientific evidence, and alleged actual damages, all of which are otherwise subject to substantial uncertainties. Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The categories of legal proceedings in which the Company is involved may include multiple lawsuits and claims, may be spread across multiple jurisdictions and courts that may handle the lawsuits and claims differently, may involve numerous and different types of plaintiffs, raising claims and legal theories based on specific allegations that may not apply to other matters, and may seek substantial compensatory and, in some cases, punitive, damages. These and other factors contribute to the complexity of these lawsuits and claims and make it difficult for the Company to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of any resulting losses. The Company's ability to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of potential losses is further influenced by the fact that a resolution of one or more matters within a category of legal proceedings may impact the resolution of other matters in that category in terms of timing, amount of liability, or both. When making determinations about recording liabilities related to legal proceedings, the Company complies with the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance, and records liabilities in those instances where it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss and when the loss is probable. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records as an accrual in its financial statements the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no one best estimate. The Company either discloses the amount of a possible loss or range of loss in excess of established accruals if estimable, or states that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company discloses significant legal proceedings even where liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, if the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred. Based on experience and developments, the Company reexamines its estimates of probable liabilities and associated expenses and receivables each period, and whether a loss previously determined to not be reasonably estimable and/or not probable is now able to be reasonably estimated or has become probable. Where appropriate, the Company makes additions to or adjustments of its reasonably estimated losses and/or accruals. As a result, the current accruals and/or estimates of loss and the estimates of the potential impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the legal proceedings and claims pending against the Company will likely change over time. During the third quarter of 2024 and 2023, the Company recognized $3 million and no legal charges, respectively. During the first nine months of 2024 and 2023, the Company recognized $8 million and $1 million in legal charges, respectively. During the third quarter of 2024, the Company made a payment of $6 million related to a legal settlement, which reduced the accrued litigation balance. At September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, accrued litigation charges were $25 million and $23 million, respectively. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, the Company may ultimately incur charges substantially in excess of presently recorded liabilities, including with respect to matters for which no accruals are currently recorded because losses are not currently probable and reasonably estimable. Many of the matters described herein are at varying stages, seek an indeterminate amount of damages or seek damages in amounts that the Company believes are not indicative of the ultimate losses that may be incurred. It is not uncommon for claims to be resolved over many years. As a matter progresses, the Company may receive information, through plaintiff demands, through discovery, in the form of reports of purported experts, or in the context of settlement or mediation discussions that purport to quantify an amount of alleged damages, but with which the Company may not agree. Such information may or may not lead the Company to determine that it is able to make a reasonable estimate as to a probable loss or range of loss in connection with a matter. However, even when a loss or range of loss is not probable and reasonably estimable, developments in, or the ultimate resolution of, a matter could be material to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company, its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, future adverse rulings or developments, or settlements in, one or more matters could result in future changes to determinations of probable and reasonably estimable losses in other matters. Process for Disclosure and Recording of Insurance Receivables Related to Legal Proceedings The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of the terms of its numerous policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of the claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has concluded is recognizable and expects to receive in light of the loss recovery and/or gain contingency models under ASC 450, ASC 610-30, and related guidance. For those insured legal proceedings for which the Company has recorded an accrued liability in its financial statements, the Company also records receivables for the amount of insurance that it concludes as recognizable from the Company’s insurance program. For those insured matters for which the Company has not recorded an accrued liability because the liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, but for which the Company has incurred an expense in defending itself, the Company records receivables for the amount of insurance that it concludes as recognizable for the expense incurred. Product Liability Litigation The following sections first describe the significant legal proceedings in which the Company is involved, and then describe the liabilities, if any, the Company has accrued relating to its significant legal proceedings. 3M is a named defendant in over 7,500 lawsuits in the United States and one Canadian putative class action with a single named plaintiff, alleging that they underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger patient warming system. Under the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of March 31, 2024, by and between Solventum and 3M (the “Separation and Distribution Agreement”), Solventum has agreed to indemnify 3M for uninsured liabilities related to the Bair Hugger patient warming system, to manage the litigation, and pay for legal expenses. The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising acts. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ( “ JPML ” ) consolidated all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district litigation ( “ MDL ” ) proceeding. In July 2019, the court excluded several of the plaintiffs’ causation experts, and granted summary judgment for 3M in all cases pending at that time in the MDL. Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiffs also appealed a 2018 jury verdict in favor of 3M in the first bellwether trial in the MDL and appealed the dismissal of another bellwether case. In August 2021, a panel of the appellate court reversed the district court’s exclusion of the plaintiffs’ causation experts and the grant of summary judgment for 3M. 3M sought further appellate en banc review by the full Eighth Circuit court. In November 2021, the Eighth Circuit court denied 3M’s petition for rehearing en banc. In May 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined 3M's February 2022 request to review the Eighth Circuit court's decision. Separately, in August 2021, the Eighth Circuit court affirmed the 2018 jury verdict in 3M’s favor in the only bellwether trial in the MDL. In February 2022, the MDL court ordered the parties to engage in any mediation sessions that a court-appointed mediator deems appropriate. Mediation sessions took place in May and August 2022 without success in resolving the litigation. In 2023, the MDL assigned a new mediator to facilitate discussions of the litigation and possible resolution. The MDL court denied plaintiffs’ April 2023 motion to disqualify the judge and magistrate judge overseeing the MDL. The parties, working with the new mediator, agreed on a bellwether process, selecting 34 cases. The MDL court transferred the non-Minnesota bellwether cases during April 2024. Bellwether cases are set for trial beginning in April 2025. Fifteen of the bellwether cases have now been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs. In addition to the federal MDL cases, there are eight state court cases relating to the Bair Hugger patient warming systems. Two are pending in Missouri state court and combine Bair Hugger product liability claims with medical malpractice claims. One of the Missouri cases was tried in 2022; the jury returned a verdict in 3M’s favor on all the claims. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and the verdict was affirmed on appeal in June 2024. The plaintiff has filed a request for further review by the Missouri Supreme Court. The other Missouri case is scheduled for trial in September 2025. There is one case in Etowah County, Alabama that combines Bair Hugger product liability claims with medical malpractice claims that has been settled in principle. A Texas case that 3M removed to federal court was remanded to state court in January 2024, a Pennsylvania case was remanded to state court in April 2024 with a trial date in April 2026, and two Montana cases were remanded to state court in June 2024. Finally, a putative class action has been filed in Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeking economic damages for the use of the Bair Hugger system in knee and hip replacement surgeries involving medically obese people in Minnesota from May 2017 to the present. Discovery is underway and the case is scheduled to be ready for trial in the fourth quarter of 2025. 3M had been named a defendant in 61 cases in Minnesota state court. In January 2018, the Minnesota state court excluded plaintiffs’ experts and granted 3M’s motion for summary judgment on general causation. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the state court orders in their entirety and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for review and entered the final dismissal in 2019, effectively ending the Minnesota state court cases. In June 2016, 3M was served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections that the representative plaintiff claims were due to the use of the Bair Hugger patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL. For product liability litigation matters described in this section for which a liability has been recorded, the amount recorded is included in the disclosed amounts in the preceding “ Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities Related to Legal Proceedings ” section and are not material to the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded liability at this time. Federal False Claims Act/Qui Tam Litigation In October 2019, 3M acquired Acelity, Inc. and its KCI subsidiaries, including Kinetic Concepts, Inc. and KCI USA, Inc. As previously disclosed in the SEC filings by the KCI entities, in 2009, Kinetic Concepts, Inc. received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. In 2011, following the completion of the government’s review and its decision declining to intervene in two qui tam actions described further below, the qui tam relator-plaintiffs’ pleadings were unsealed. The government inquiry followed two qui tam actions filed in 2008 by two former employees against Kinetic Concepts, Inc. and KCI USA, Inc. (collectively, the “ KCI Defendants ” ) under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. One qui tam action (the Godecke case) was dismissed in January 2022. In the remaining action (the Hartpence case), the complaint contains allegations that the KCI Defendants violated the federal False Claims Act by submitting false or fraudulent claims to federal healthcare programs by billing for 3M V.A.C. Therapy in a manner that was not consistent with the Local Coverage Determinations issued by the Durable Medical Equipment Medicare Administrative Contractors and seeks monetary damages. In June 2019, the district court entered summary judgment in the KCI Defendants’ favor on all of the relator-plaintiff’s claims. The relator-plaintiff then filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument in the Hartpence case was held in July 2020. The appellate court issued an opinion in August 2022 reversing the decision of the district court and remanding the case for further proceedings. The district court held a status conference in January 2023 during which no case deadlines were set; the litigation remains in a pre-trial stage. The KCI Defendants filed a renewed motion for summary judgment in March 2023. In July 2023, the parties filed a joint status report notifying the court of the parties’ agreement to mediate the matter in November 2023. As a result of a mediation held in November 2023, the relator-plaintiff and KCI reached an agreement in principle to settle the case and resolve all the remaining claims in this action, including the dismissal of the relator-plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, subject to the agreement of the government and the parties’ negotiation and agreement of all remaining terms of the settlement. The KCI Defendants and relator-plaintiff have jointly requested that the court continue to hold in abeyance any hearing on the KCI Defendants’ pending Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and any further proceedings in this case, to allow the parties to confer with counsel for the government and negotiate the remaining terms of the settlement agreement. The KCI Defendants and the relator-plaintiff submitted an updated status report to the court during January 2024 and further status reports in July and September 2024. Under the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, Solventum has agreed to indemnify 3M for liabilities related to this matter, to manage the litigation, and pay for related legal expenses. For the matters described in this section for which a liability has been recorded, the amount recorded is included in the disclosed amounts in the preceding “ Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities Related to Legal Proceedings ” section and are not material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded liability at this time. Warranties/Guarantees The Company has not issued any material financial guarantees of loans with third parties or other guarantee arrangements. Furthermore, the Company does not disclose information on its product warranties, as management considers the balance immaterial to its consolidated results of operations and financial condition. | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings : 3M is involved in numerous claims and lawsuits, principally in the United States, and regulatory proceedings worldwide. These claims, lawsuits and proceedings relate to matters including, but not limited to, products liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold), intellectual property, commercial, antitrust, federal healthcare program related laws and regulations, such as the False Claims Act and anti-kickback laws, securities, and environmental laws in the United States and other jurisdictions. Unless otherwise stated, 3M is vigorously defending all such litigation and proceedings. From time to time, 3M also receives subpoenas, investigative demands or requests for information from various government agencies in the United States and foreign countries. 3M generally responds in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner. These responses sometimes require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Such requests can also lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of administrative, civil, or criminal legal proceedings against 3M and others, as well as to settlements. The outcomes of legal proceedings and regulatory matters are often difficult to predict. Any determination that the Company’s operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance with applicable laws or regulations could result in the imposition of fines, civil or criminal penalties, and equitable remedies, including disgorgement, suspension or debarment or injunctive relief. Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities Related to Legal Proceedings Many lawsuits and claims involve highly complex issues relating to causation, scientific evidence, and alleged actual damages, all of which are otherwise subject to substantial uncertainties. Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The categories of legal proceedings in which the Company is involved may include multiple lawsuits and claims, may be spread across multiple jurisdictions and courts which may handle the lawsuits and claims differently, may involve numerous and different types of plaintiffs, raising claims and legal theories based on specific allegations that may not apply to other matters, and may seek substantial compensatory and, in some cases, punitive, damages. These and other factors contribute to the complexity of these lawsuits and claims and make it difficult for the Company to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of any resulting losses. The Company's ability to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of potential losses is further influenced by the fact that a resolution of one or more matters within a category of legal proceedings may impact the resolution of other matters in that category in terms of timing, amount of liability, or both. When making determinations about recording liabilities related to legal proceedings, the Company complies with the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance, and records liabilities in those instances where it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss and when the loss is probable. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records as an accrual in its financial statements the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no one best estimate. The Company either discloses the amount of a possible loss or range of loss in excess of established accruals if estimable, or states that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company discloses significant legal proceedings even where liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, if the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred. Based on experience and developments, the Company reexamines its estimates of probable liabilities and associated expenses and receivables each period, and whether a loss previously determined to not be reasonably estimable and/or not probable is now able to be reasonably estimated or has become probable. Where appropriate, the Company makes additions to or adjustments of its reasonably estimated losses and/ or accruals. As a result, the current accruals and/or estimates of loss and the estimates of the potential impact on the Company’s combined financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the legal proceedings and claims pending against the Company will likely change over time. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, the Company may ultimately incur charges substantially in excess of presently recorded liabilities, including with respect to matters for which no accruals are currently recorded because losses are not currently probable and reasonably estimable. Many of the matters described herein are at varying stages, seek an indeterminate amount of damages or seek damages in amounts that the Company believes are not indicative of the ultimate losses that may be incurred. It is not uncommon for claims to be resolved over many years. As a matter progresses, the Company may receive information, through plaintiff demands, through discovery, in the form of reports of purported experts, or in the context of settlement or mediation discussions that purport to quantify an amount of alleged damages, but with which the Company may not agree. Such information may or may not lead the Company to determine that it is able to make a reasonable estimate as to a probable loss or range of loss in connection with a matter. However, even when a loss or range of loss is not probable and reasonably estimable, developments in, or the ultimate resolution of, a matter could be material to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company, its combined financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, future adverse rulings or developments, or settlements in, one or more matters could result in future changes to determinations of probable and reasonably estimable losses in other matters. Process for Disclosure and Recording of Insurance Receivables Related to Legal Proceedings The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of the terms of its numerous policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of the claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has concluded is recognizable and expects to receive in light of the loss recovery and/or gain contingency models under ASC 450, ASC 610-30, and related guidance. For those insured legal proceedings where the Company has recorded an accrued liability in its financial statements, the Company also records receivables for the amount of insurance that it concludes as recognizable from the Company’s insurance program. For those insured matters where the Company has not recorded an accrued liability because the liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, but where the Company has incurred an expense in defending itself, the Company records receivables for the amount of insurance that it concludes as recognizable for the expense incurred. Product Liability Litigation The following sections first describe the significant legal proceedings in which the Company is involved, and then describe the liabilities the Company has accrued relating to its significant legal proceedings. 3M is a named defendant in over 6,200 lawsuits in the United States and one Canadian putative class action with a single named plaintiff, alleging that they underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger patient warming system. The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising acts. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) consolidated all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) proceeding. In July 2019, the court excluded several of the plaintiffs’ causation experts, and granted summary judgment for 3M in all cases pending at that time in the MDL. Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiffs also appealed a 2018 jury verdict in favor of 3M in the first bellwether trial in the MDL and appealed the dismissal of another bellwether case. A panel of the appellate court in August 2021 reversed the district court’s exclusion of the plaintiffs’ causation experts and the grant of summary judgment for 3M. 3M sought further appellate en banc review by the full Eighth Circuit court. In November 2021, the Eighth Circuit court denied 3M’s petition for rehearing en banc. In May 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined 3M's February 2022 request to review the Eighth Circuit court's decision. Separately, in August 2021, the Eighth Circuit court affirmed the 2018 jury verdict in 3M’s favor in the only bellwether trial in the MDL. In February 2022, the MDL court ordered the parties to engage in any mediation sessions that a court-appointed mediator deems appropriate. Mediation sessions took place in May and August 2022 without success in resolving the litigation. The MDL court in 2023 assigned a new mediator to facilitate discussions of the litigation and possible resolution. The MDL court denied plaintiffs’ April 2023 motion to disqualify the judge and magistrate judge overseeing the MDL. The parties, working with the new mediator, agreed on the beginning of a bellwether process, selecting 34 cases, with federal court trials to potentially begin in 2024. The MDL court recommended remand of the non-Minnesota bellwether cases; the JPML will consider that recommendation during the first quarter of 2024. In addition to the federal MDL cases, there are five state court cases relating to the Bair Hugger patient warming systems. Two are pending in Missouri state court and combine Bair Hugger product liability claims with medical malpractice claims. One of the Missouri cases was tried in September and October of 2022; the jury returned a verdict in 3M’s favor on all the claims. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. The other Missouri case is scheduled for trial in September 2024. There is one case in Etowah County, Alabama that combines Bair Hugger product liability claims with medical malpractice claims. It is also set for trial in November 2024. A Texas case that 3M removed to federal court was remanded to state court in January 2024. Finally, a putative class action has been filed in Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeking economic damages for the use of the Bair Hugger system in orthopedic surgeries of medically obese people in Minnesota from May 2017 to the present. The Ramsey County court denied a motion to dismiss in August 2023. Three other state court cases have been resolved in 2023, including a Missouri state court case that was voluntarily dismissed in June 2023 and a Texas state court case that was voluntarily dismissed in September 2023. Three cases (two in Montana, and one in Pennsylvania) have been removed to federal court; plaintiffs’ motions to remand are pending. 3M had been named a defendant in 61 cases in Minnesota state court. In January 2018, the Minnesota state court excluded plaintiffs’ experts and granted 3M’s motion for summary judgment on general causation. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the state court orders in their entirety and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for review and entered the final dismissal in 2019, effectively ending the Minnesota state court cases. In June 2016, 3M was served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections that the representative plaintiff claims were due to the use of the Bair Hugger patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL. For product liability litigation matters described in this section for which a liability has been recorded, the amount recorded is not material to the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded liability at this time. Federal False Claims Act/Qui Tam Litigation In October 2019, 3M acquired Acelity, Inc. and its KCI subsidiaries, including Kinetic Concepts, Inc. and KCI USA, Inc. As previously disclosed in the SEC filings by the KCI entities, in 2009, Kinetic Concepts, Inc. received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. In 2011, following the completion of the government’s review and its decision declining to intervene in two qui tam actions described further below, the qui tam relator-plaintiffs’ pleadings were unsealed. The government inquiry followed two qui tam actions filed in 2008 by two former employees against Kinetic Concepts, Inc. and KCI USA, Inc. (collectively, the “KCI Defendants”) under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. One qui tam action (the Godecke case) was dismissed in January 2022. In the remaining action (the Hartpence case), the complaint contains allegations that the KCI Defendants violated the federal False Claims Act by submitting false or fraudulent claims to federal healthcare programs by billing for 3M V.A.C. Therapy in a manner that was not consistent with the Local Coverage Determinations issued by the Durable Medical Equipment Medicare Administrative Contractors and seeks monetary damages. In June 2019, the district court entered summary judgment in the KCI Defendants’ favor on all of the relator-plaintiff’s claims. The relator-plaintiff then filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument in the Hartpence case was held in July 2020. The appellate court issued an opinion in August 2022 reversing the decision of the district court and remanding the case for further proceedings. The district court held a status conference in January 2023 where no case deadlines were set; the litigation remains in a pre-trial stage. The KCI Defendants filed a renewed motion for summary judgment in March 2023. In July 2023, the parties filed a joint status report notifying the court of the parties’ agreement to mediate the matter in November 2023. As a result of a mediation held in November 2023, the relator-plaintiff and KCI reached an agreement in principle to settle the case and resolve all the remaining claims in this action, including the dismissal of the relator-plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, subject to the agreement of the government and the parties’ negotiation and agreement of all remaining terms of the settlement. The KCI Defendants and relator-plaintiff have jointly requested that the court continue to hold in abeyance any hearing on the KCI Defendants’ pending Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and any further proceedings in this case, to allow the parties to confer with counsel for the government and negotiate the remaining terms of the settlement agreement. The KCI Defendants and the relator-plaintiff submitted an updated status report to the court during January 2024. For the matters described in this section for which a liability has been recorded, the amount recorded is not material to the Company’s combined results of operations or financial condition. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded liability at this time. Compliance Matter The Company, through its internal processes, discovered certain travel activities and related funding and record keeping issues raising concerns, arising from marketing efforts by certain business groups based in China. The Company initiated an internal investigation to determine whether the expenditures may have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or other potentially applicable anti-corruption laws. In July 2019, the Company voluntarily disclosed this investigation to both the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and cooperated with both agencies. In August 2023, the Company resolved the investigation with both above agencies. The DOJ closed its investigation with no action taken against the Company. Without admitting or denying the findings, the Company entered into a voluntary settlement with the SEC which found violations of the books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The resolution includes an agreement to cease and desist from committing any violations of these provisions and a payment of approximately $6.50 million. Warranties/Guarantees : The Company has not issued any material financial guarantees of loans with third parties or other guarantee arrangements. Furthermore, the Company does not disclose information on its product warranties, as management considers the balance immaterial to its combined results of operations and financial condition. |
