Draft Registration Statement No. 2
Table of Contents

Confidential draft registration statement no. 2 submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2017. This draft registration statement has not been filed publicly with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and all information contained herein remains strictly confidential.

Registration No. 333-            

 

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Form S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT

Under

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

 

 

SI-BONE, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

 

 

Delaware   3841   26-2216351

(State or Other Jurisdiction of

Incorporation or Organization)

 

(Primary Standard Industrial

Classification Code Number)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification Number)

 

 

SI-BONE, Inc.

3055 Olin Avenue, Suite 2200

San Jose, California 95128

(408) 207-0700

(Address, including zip code and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

 

 

Laura A. Francis

Chief Financial Officer

SI-BONE, Inc.

3055 Olin Avenue, Suite 2200

San Jose, California 95128

(408) 207-0700

(Name, address, including zip code and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service)

 

 

 

Copies to:

Matthew B. Hemington

John T. McKenna

Cooley LLP

3175 Hanover Street

Palo Alto, California 94304

(650) 843-5000

 

Michael A. Pisetsky

General Counsel

SI-BONE, Inc.

3055 Olin Avenue, Suite 2200

San Jose, California 95128

(408) 207-0700

 

Michael Benjamin

Peter J. Sluka

Latham & Watkins LLP

885 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

(212) 906-1200

 

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this Registration Statement. If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the following box.  ☐

If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  ☐

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  ☐

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

Large accelerated filer  ☐   Accelerated filer  ☐   Non-accelerated filer  ☑   Smaller reporting company  ☐

(Do not check if a

smaller reporting company)

Emerging growth company  ☑

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act.  ☑

 

CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE

 

 

Title of Each Class of Securities to be Registered   Proposed Maximum
Aggregate Offering
Price(1)(2)
 

Amount of

Registration Fee

Common Stock, $0.0001 par value

  $                            $                             

 

 

 

(1) Estimated pursuant to Rule 457(o) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
(2) Includes the aggregate offering price of additional shares that the underwriters have the option to purchase.

 

 

The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or until the Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to such Section 8(a), may determine.

 

 

 


Table of Contents

The information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This preliminary prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale is not permitted.

 

SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED                 , 2017

 

 

LOGO

            Shares

Common Stock

 

 

This is the initial public offering of shares of common stock of SI-BONE, Inc.

We are offering                  shares of our common stock. Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our common stock. It is currently estimated that the initial public offering price per share will be between $        and $        . We intend to apply to list our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “SIBN.”

We are an emerging growth company under the federal securities laws and will be subject to reduced public company reporting requirements. See “Prospectus Summary—Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company.”

 

 

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. See “Risk Factors” beginning on page 13.

 

     Per
Share
     Total  

Initial public offering price

   $                   $               

Underwriting discounts and commissions(1)

   $      $  

Proceeds, before expenses, to us

   $      $  

 

(1) See “Underwriting” for additional disclosure regarding underwriting discounts, commissions and estimated offering expenses.

To the extent that the underwriters sell more than                  shares of common stock, the underwriters have a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional                  shares from us at the initial public offering price, less the underwriting discounts and commissions.

The underwriters expect to deliver the shares against payment in New York, New York on                 , 2017.

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

 

 

 

Morgan Stanley    BofA Merrill Lynch
Canaccord Genuity    JMP Securities

                    , 2017


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

     Page  

Prospectus Summary

     1  

Risk Factors

     13  

Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

     56  

Market, Industry, and Other Data

     58  

Use of Proceeds

     59  

Dividend Policy

     59  

Capitalization.

     60  

Dilution

     62  

Selected Consolidated Financial Data

     65  

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

     67  

Business

     83  

Management

     115  
     Page  

Executive Compensation

     127  

Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions

     139  

Principal Stockholders

     143  

Description of Capital Stock

     147  

Shares Eligible for Future Sale

     152  

Material U.S. Federal Income and Estate Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders of our Common Stock

     155  

Underwriting

     159  

Legal Matters

     167  

Experts

     167  

Where You Can Find Additional Information

     167  

Index to Consolidated Financial Statements

     F-1  
 

 

 

Neither we nor the underwriters have authorized anyone to provide any information or to make any representations other than those contained in this prospectus or in any free writing prospectuses prepared by or on behalf of us or to which we have referred you. We and the underwriters take no responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the reliability of, any other information that others may give you. This prospectus is an offer to sell only the shares offered hereby, but only under circumstances and in jurisdictions where it is lawful to do so. The information contained in this prospectus or in any applicable free writing prospectus is current only as of its date, regardless of its time of delivery or any sale of shares of our common stock. Our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may have changed since that date.

Through and including                     , 2017 (25 days after commencement of this offering), all dealers that effect transactions in these securities, whether or not participating in this offering, may be required to deliver a prospectus. This is in addition to the dealers’ obligation to deliver a prospectus when acting as underwriters and with respect to their unsold allotments or subscriptions.

TRADEMARKS

Unless the context indicates otherwise, as used in this prospectus, the terms “SI-BONE” and “iFuse Implant System” or “iFuse” and other iFuse-formative trademarks, as well as other trademarks or service marks of SI-BONE appearing in this prospectus, are the property of SI-BONE. This prospectus contains additional trade names, trademarks, and service marks of ours and of other companies. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, these other companies.

 

i


Table of Contents

KEY METRICS FOR STUDIES

Statistical significance in the studies described in this prospectus is denoted by p-values for both pain and disability analysis. The p-value is the statistical probability that the results observed are due to chance alone (i.e., a p-value <0.0001 for reduction in pain means that there is a less than a 0.01% chance that the demonstrated reduction in pain for subjects surgically treated with iFuse in relation to the non-surgical management group was purely due to chance).

The performance for subjects surgically treated with iFuse is evaluated using a number of commonly used metrics, including the following:

 

    Visual analog scale (“VAS”): VAS measures a patient’s pain intensity on a 0–100 scale, with zero representing no pain and 100 representing the worst pain imaginable. The VAS score is used to calculate changes in patient pain.

 

    Oswestry Disability Index (“ODI”): ODI measures a patient’s disability on a scale of 0–100, where zero represents no disability and scores greater than 60 represent very severe disability.

INVESTORS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Neither we nor the underwriters have done anything that would permit this offering or possession or distribution of this prospectus or any free writing prospectus we may provide to you in connection with this offering in any jurisdiction where action for that purpose is required, other than in the United States. You are required to inform yourselves about and to observe any restrictions relating to this offering and the distribution of this prospectus and any such free writing prospectus outside of the United States.

 

ii


Table of Contents

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY

This summary highlights certain information contained elsewhere in this prospectus. This summary is not complete and does not contain all of the information you should consider in making your investment decision. You should read the entire prospectus carefully before making an investment in our common stock. You should carefully consider, among other things, our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and the sections titled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this prospectus. Except as otherwise indicated herein or as the context otherwise requires, references in this prospectus to “SI-BONE,” “the company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to SI-BONE, Inc.

Our Business

We are a medical device company that has pioneered a proprietary minimally invasive surgical implant system to fuse the sacroiliac joint for treatment of common types of sacroiliac joint disorders that cause lower back pain. We introduced our iFuse Implant System, or iFuse, in 2009 in the United States and in 2010 in certain countries in the European Union. Since 2009, more than 25,000 iFuse Procedures have been performed by over 1,300 surgeons, primarily in the United States. Based on our commercial experience and our market research, we believe iFuse is currently used in approximately 70% of minimally invasive surgical fusions of the sacroiliac joint in the United States. During 2015 and 2016, we generated revenue of $41.2 million and $42.1 million, respectively, and our net loss was $28.2 million and $20.6 million, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2017, we generated revenue of $9.6 million and $11.4 million, respectively, and our net loss was $6.6 million and $6.6 million, respectively. We expect to continue to incur operating losses in the future.

The two sacroiliac joints connect the sacral bone at the base of the spine with the two iliac bones of the pelvis, and absorb and transmit shock between the legs and the upper body. Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction may experience pain that can be debilitating. We believe that the sacroiliac joint is the last major joint to be addressed by the orthopedic implant industry.

Our iFuse Implants are triangular, and three implants are typically used in each procedure. Our implants are made of titanium and are coated with a porous surface using a titanium plasma spray process. Each iFuse Implant is at least three times the strength of a typical eight millimeter surgical screw and the large porous surface area allows fixation of the bone to the implants.

iFuse is supported by published evidence of safety, clinical effectiveness, durability and reduction in opioid users. These benefits are supported by more than 50 peer reviewed papers, including three prospective multicenter studies, two of which were randomized controlled clinical trials.

 

    INSITE was a randomized controlled study conducted in the United States. Positive 24-month follow-up results were published in August 2016 in the International Journal of Spine Surgery showing statistically significant and clinically important reduction in pain and disability. In April 2015, INSITE was awarded the “Best Overall Paper” out of approximately 450 submitted clinical study papers at the International Society for Advancement of Spine Surgery, or ISASS, conference.

 

    iMIA was a randomized controlled study conducted in Europe. Positive six-month follow-up results were published in European Spine Journal in May 2016, and the 12-month follow-up results were accepted in March 2017 for publication in Pain Physician, showing statistically significant and clinically profound reduction in pain and disability.

 

    SIFI was a single-arm study conducted in the United States. Positive 24-month follow-up results were published in the International Journal of Spine Surgery in April 2016, showing substantial and sustained reduction in pain and disability.

 



 

1


Table of Contents

A pooled analysis of these three prospective studies was published in March 2017 in SPINE, showing consistent and durable reduction in pain and disability, and improvement in quality of life.

 

    A controlled study that followed patients for up to six years was published in April 2017 in Neurosurgery, showing that at their last follow up visit more than 80% of patients who received non-surgical management were using opioids, while only 7% of patients treated with iFuse were using opioids.

The INSITE clinical trial included 148 subjects treated at 19 centers in the United States, with subjects randomized in a two to one ratio to either immediate sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse or non-surgical management. The study design allowed subjects in the non-surgical management group to cross over and have surgery after six months. By 24 months after the start of the clinical trial, 89% of the non-surgical management group subjects still participating in the trial had elected to cross over to have the iFuse Procedure. The study’s results can be summarized as follows:

 

    Reduction in Pain. There was a statistically significant and clinically important pain reduction in subjects treated with iFuse as compared to those treated with non-surgical management. As shown in the graph below, subjects surgically treated with iFuse had mean 52, 54 and 55-point reductions in sacroiliac joint pain at 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively, as measured on VAS. By contrast, subjects in the non-surgical management group had only a mean 12-point reduction (p<0.0001) at six months. In addition, the non-surgical management group subjects who elected after six months to cross over to have the iFuse Procedure had pain reduction similar to that seen in subjects originally assigned to sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse. At 24 months, the proportion of subjects with a reduction in VAS sacroiliac joint pain of 20 or more points was 83% in the iFuse group and 10% in the non-surgical management group.

 

LOGO

 



 

2


Table of Contents
    Reduction in Disability. There was a statistically significant reduction in disability with iFuse as compared to non-surgical management. Subjects surgically treated with iFuse had a mean 27-point reduction in disability at six months on ODI, while subjects in the non-surgical management group had only a mean 5-point reduction (p<0.0001). ODI reductions were sustained at month 24 (28-point reduction). In addition, at 24 months, the proportion of subjects with an ODI improvement of at least 15 points was 68.2% and 7.5% in the iFuse and non-surgical management groups, respectively (p<0.0001).

Patients from this study will be followed for up to five years in a separate long-term study.

A published study following patients for up to six years showed that pain relief was maintained for patients treated with iFuse, while patients treated with non-surgical management showed worsening pain over that period. Moreover, the cumulative four-year revision rate with iFuse, an important clinical outcome, is approximately 3.6%, or one-third of the reported revision rate of lumbar, or lower back, fusion.

Market

Over 30 million Americans experience lower back pain at any given time, according to The New England Journal of Medicine. Published clinical studies have shown that 15% to 30% of all lower back pain is associated with the sacroiliac joint. Our experience in both clinical trials and commercial settings indicates that iFuse could be beneficial to at least 30% of patients who visit trained healthcare providers and are screened for exclusion and inclusion criteria. Based on our market experience and internal estimates, we believe that 10% of Americans that experience lower back pain related to the sacroiliac joint are potential candidates for the iFuse Procedure. Accordingly, we estimate that the potential market for iFuse in the United States would be 465,000 patients annually.

Studies have also shown that the disability from disease of the sacroiliac joint is comparable to the disability associated with a number of other serious orthopedic conditions (for example, knee and hip arthritis, narrowing of the spinal canal, or spinal stenosis, and degenerative disc disease), all of which have surgical solutions where an implant is used and a significant market exists. For example, there are a large number of lumbar fusions to treat lower back pain in the United States.

Limitations of Prior Treatment and Our iFuse Solution

Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction frequently experience significant pain simply from sitting, standing, or rolling over in bed. The pain can be exacerbated with activity—when a patient walks or runs, for example, the shock from each step is transmitted up the leg to the iliac bones of the pelvis. This results in small movements of the sacroiliac joints and pressure transferred across the joints. The initial goal in fusion of the sacroiliac joint is to immediately stabilize the joint because the movement of the damaged or arthritic joint is believed to cause the pain. After the joint has been stabilized, the goal is to permanently fuse the joint.

Surgical fusion of the sacroiliac joint with an open surgical technique was first reported in 1908; further reports were described in the 1920s. The open procedure uses plates and screws, is extremely invasive, and involves greater blood loss and longer recovery time when compared to the iFuse minimally invasive procedure.

 



 

3


Table of Contents

Open surgery for elective sacroiliac joint fusion has become less common in the United States since we introduced iFuse. The table below highlights some of the key differences between the iFuse Procedure and open surgery.

 

     Fusion with Open Surgery      iFuse Procedure  

Size of incision

     6 to 12 inches        1 to 2 inches  

Average hospital stay

     5.1 nights        1.3 nights  

Average blood loss

     800 ml        33 ml  

Due to its invasiveness, pain, long recovery time, and infrequent use, the open fusion procedure was rarely taught in medical school or residency programs. Prior to our launch of iFuse, most spine surgeons had never performed a sacroiliac joint fusion. As a result, when patients presented with lower back pain, spine surgeons often did not include a sacroiliac joint evaluation in their diagnostic work-up.

It is often difficult to identify the source of lower back pain. As a result, some surgical procedures performed on the spine have a sub-optimal success rate. For example, published studies of lumbar fusion have shown success rates of only approximately 60%. We believe low success rates of lumbar fusion are likely related to failure to diagnose the sacroiliac joint as the correct cause of pain in some cases.

In addition to training surgeons to perform the iFuse Procedure, we have made considerable investments in teaching healthcare professionals to accurately diagnose sacroiliac joint disorders. We provide instruction and training on how to perform provocative maneuvers in a physician’s office that can reveal the sacroiliac joint as the source of pain. If provocative tests are positive, surgeons confirm the diagnosis by injecting a small amount of local anesthetic into the joint under fluoroscopic guidance. If the local anesthetic produces immediate pain reduction, it confirms that the sacroiliac joint is the source of the pain. In addition to the differentiated characteristics of our iFuse Procedure and iFuse Implants, we believe that more accurate diagnosis is part of the reason for the high success rate of iFuse.

The iFuse Procedure is performed under general anesthesia and involves an incision approximately one to two inches in length. The surgeon uses a custom instrument set we provide to prepare a triangular channel across the sacroiliac joint for each implant. An iFuse Implant is then pressed into a triangular channel, which is slightly smaller than the implant, creating what is known as an interference fit. The triangular shape of our iFuse Implants, as shown below, prevents them from rotating. Our iFuse Implants have more than 30 times the rotation resistance of screws based on a study we sponsored. iFuse Implants cross the sacroiliac joint and provide stability, which is why we believe pain diminishes soon after the iFuse Procedure. We have issued patents on implants with cross-sections of different shapes, including the triangular shape we use for iFuse. We also have issued patents for the method of placing those implants for applications across the sacroiliac joint, as well as other parts of the spine and pelvis.

 

 

LOGO

 



 

4


Table of Contents

By contrast, open fusion of the sacroiliac joint, as well as the minimally invasive solutions offered by other companies, typically use screws and/or plates for fixation. When placed across the sacroiliac joint, standard orthopedic screws, with no features to encourage biologic fixation, have an exhibited propensity to rotate and loosen over time. Because of the triangular shape, porous coating, strength, and other differentiating factors of our iFuse Implants, we believe that our published clinical data does not apply to other minimally invasive solutions, for which little published evidence of safety, clinical effectiveness, durability, or economic utility currently exists. We are unaware of any data to show that our competitors’ sacroiliac joint screws, with features allowing biologic fixation, have a lower rate of loosening than standard orthopedic screws. In addition, placement of plates for open fusion procedures typically requires larger incisions and more invasive dissection, which results in longer recovery times and increased morbidity.

Surgical revision is an important outcome for patients. A recent single site retrospective study published in the International Journal of Spine Surgery showed a cumulative revision rate of more than 30% at four years for screw-based treatment of sacroiliac joint pain (based on 38 cases) and a revision rate of less than 6% for iFuse (based on 274 cases). Based on an extensive review of the published medical literature before that study, private payors Health Care Service Corporation, or HCSC, Geisinger and SelectHealth Medical Technology Assessment Committees, or SelectHealth, determined that coverage of minimally invasive (MIS) sacroiliac joint fusion specific to iFuse was appropriate as the literature related to other MIS sacroiliac joint fusion systems was inadequate to determine safety and effectiveness. Use of all other technologies is considered experimental/investigational or unproven and therefore not covered.

Next Generation Implant

Our next generation iFuse implant, the iFuse-3D, was cleared for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 and the European Union in May 2017. This implant is produced with 3D printing and is designed to promote in-growth, through-growth and on-growth by bone. This product has shown positive bone growth in animal studies as evidenced in two peer reviewed studies accepted in March 2017 for publication in the International Journal of Spine Surgery. We are planning a gradual roll out of this product.

Coverage and Reimbursement in the United States

Prior to our launch of iFuse, Medicare and most private insurance companies reimbursed surgeons for sacroiliac joint fusions using either an established Category I Current Procedure Terminology, or CPT, code or an unlisted code. A Category I CPT code is typically assigned to procedures that are consistent with contemporary medical practice and are widely performed. Procedures with a longstanding Category I CPT code are usually reimbursed.

However, effective July 1, 2013, the American Medical Association’s, or AMA’s, CPT Editorial Panel created a new Category III CPT code for fusion of the sacroiliac joint using a minimally invasive or percutaneous approach. Category III CPT codes are used for new and emerging technologies and are reimbursed sporadically. This new code functionally redefined coding for sacroiliac joint fusions because it meant that minimally invasive or percutaneous fusion procedures should not be billed using the general Category I CPT code for sacroiliac fusion surgery. The coding change was accompanied by the establishment of a Medicare hospital outpatient prospective payment rate for the new code.

Following the creation of the new Category III CPT code, a number of papers demonstrating the clinical success of the iFuse Procedure were published. These studies, along with the support of several professional societies and surgeons, resulted in the AMA CPT Editorial Panel establishing a new Category I CPT code specifically for sacroiliac joint fusion surgery using a minimally invasive or percutaneous approach. This new Category I CPT code became effective on January 1, 2015.

 



 

5


Table of Contents

Subsequently, in March 2015, our INSITE prospective, randomized controlled multi-center clinical trial was published. In June 2015, the largest spine society in the world, the North American Spine Society, or NASS, published a positive coverage recommendation, based on the clinical evidence, advocating to insurance companies and Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs, that sacroiliac joint fusion using a minimally invasive surgical approach should be routinely reimbursed. In March 2015, the International Society for Advancement of Spine Surgery, or ISASS, also published a similar positive advocacy document intended to encourage insurance companies in the United States to reimburse for the procedure.

Coverage decisions for this code are made independently by each of the private insurance companies and the eight MACs, and the process of obtaining coverage is laborious. As of June 30, 2016, because of the iFuse clinical evidence, all eight MACs were covering the procedure. As of March 31, 2017, eight of the largest 50 private payors were covering the iFuse Procedure regularly, while the vast majority of private payors were evaluating their coverage policies. In addition, because of the iFuse clinical evidence, the private payors HCSC, Geisinger and SelectHealth, have issued positive coverage policies for iFuse while specifically excluding coverage for any competitive products. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2016, the increasing coverage, combined with our sales and marketing efforts, has led to an increase in the number of procedures and we believe will lead to a return to revenue growth.

Our Strategy

Our objective is to maintain and enhance our leadership position in providing clinically-proven products and training for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion and provide relief for as many patients as possible. To accomplish this objective, we intend to:

 

    Continue to educate physicians, payors, and patients globally about the growing body of compelling evidence supporting the safety, clinical effectiveness, durability and reduction in opioid use associated with the iFuse Procedure;

 

    Increase reimbursement coverage based on our evidence of safety, clinical effectiveness, durability and reduction in opioid use;

 

    Continue to invest in iFuse awareness, surgeon training, new products, and additional clinical and economic studies;

 

    Educate and train the healthcare community on the prevalence, anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment options, including minimally invasive surgical fusion of the sacroiliac joint;

 

    Expand our direct field organization in the United States and select European countries to drive adoption of our iFuse products;

 

    Maintain our technological leadership by investing in the creation of new or improved products for sacroiliac joint surgery, and obtain domestic and international regulatory clearance or approvals to market them in the United States and additional countries; and

 

    Continue to grow and defend our existing intellectual property portfolio.

Company History

SI-BONE was founded in 2008 by the main inventor of iFuse and member of our board of directors, orthopedist Mark A. Reiley, M.D., our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Jeffrey W. Dunn, and orthopedic surgeon Leonard Rudolf, M.D. Dr. Reiley previously invented balloon kyphoplasty and founded Kyphon Inc., which was sold to Medtronic plc in 2007. He also invented the INBONE total ankle replacement system, which was sold to Wright Medical Technology, Inc. in 2008.

As of March 31, 2017, we had 183 employees, including a direct field sales organization of 73 in the United States and 12 in Europe. In the United States, we sell primarily through our direct field organization, and we have

 



 

6


Table of Contents

a small number of third-party distributors. As of March 31, 2017, throughout the world we had 29 issued patents, of which 23 were in the United States, and 28 pending patents, of which 16 were in the United States. These patents and applications cover various aspects of the iFuse Procedure, implants, and instruments.

Risks Associated With Our Business

Our business is subject to numerous risks, as more fully described in “Risk Factors,” which immediately follow this prospectus summary. These risks include, among others:

 

    We have incurred significant operating losses since inception, we expect to continue to incur operating losses in the future, and we may not be able to achieve or sustain future profitability.

 

    If hospitals, surgeons, and other healthcare providers are unable to obtain adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for procedures performed using our products, adoption of our products may be delayed, and it is unlikely that they will gain widespread acceptance.

 

    We may not be able to convince physicians that iFuse is an attractive alternative to our competitors’ products and that our procedure is an attractive alternative to existing surgical and non-surgical treatments of the sacroiliac joint.

 

    Surgeons and payors may not find our clinical evidence to be compelling, which could limit our sales and revenue, and on-going and future research may prove our products to be less safe and effective than initially anticipated.

 

    Pricing pressure from our competitors, changes in third-party coverage and reimbursement, healthcare provider consolidation, payor consolidation and the proliferation of “physician owned distributorships” may impact our ability to sell our product at prices necessary to support our current business strategies.

 

    We operate in a very competitive business environment and if we are unable to compete successfully against our existing or potential competitors, our sales and operating results may be negatively affected and we may not grow.

 

    We currently manufacture and sell products used in a single procedure, which could negatively affect our operations and financial condition.

 

    If we are unable to maintain and expand our network of direct sales representatives and third-party distributors, we may not be able to generate anticipated sales.

 

    We have a limited operating history and may face difficulties encountered by early stage companies in new and rapidly evolving markets.

 

    Our sales volumes and our operating results may fluctuate over the course of the year.

 

    If our business strategy proves to be flawed, or if we do not successfully implement our business strategy, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

 

    We will need to generate significant sales to become profitable.

 

    Our future capital needs are uncertain and we may need to raise additional funds in the future, and such funds may not be available on acceptable terms or at all.

 

    We, our suppliers, and our third-party manufacturers are subject to extensive governmental regulation both in the United States and abroad and failure to comply with applicable requirements could cause our business to suffer.

 

    We and our sales representatives must comply with U.S. federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including anti-kickback and false claims and equivalent foreign rules.

 



 

7


Table of Contents

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

We qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. An emerging growth company may take advantage of relief from certain reporting requirements and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

 

    reduced obligations with respect to financial data, including presenting only two years of audited financial statements and only two years of selected financial data;

 

    an exception from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;

 

    reduced disclosure about our executive compensation arrangements in our periodic reports, proxy statements and registration statements; and

 

    exemptions from the requirements of holding non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation or golden parachute arrangements.

We may take advantage of these provisions for up to five years or such earlier time that we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.1 billion in annual revenue, have more than $700 million in market value of our capital stock held by non-affiliates or issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these reduced reporting burdens.

In addition, under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in March 2008 in Delaware. Our principal executive offices are located at 3055 Olin Avenue, Suite 2200, San Jose, California 95128, and our telephone number is (408) 207-0700. Our website address is www.si-bone.com. The information on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this prospectus. We have included our website address as an inactive textual reference only.

 



 

8


Table of Contents

THE OFFERING

 

Shares of common stock offered by us

                    shares

Shares of common stock to be outstanding after this offering

  

                 shares (                 shares if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full)

Option to purchase additional shares

   We have granted to the underwriters the option, exercisable for 30 days, to purchase up to             additional shares of our common stock.

Use of proceeds

   We estimate that the net proceeds from this offering of                  shares of our common stock will be approximately $        million, or $        million if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus.
   We expect to use approximately $        million of the net proceeds for sales and marketing activities to support ongoing commercialization of iFuse Implant System and the remainder, if any, for working capital and general corporate purposes, including research and development and clinical studies. We may also use a portion of our net proceeds to acquire or invest in complementary products, technologies, or businesses; however, we currently have no agreements or commitments to complete any such transactions. See the section titled “Use of Proceeds.”

Risk factors

   See the section titled “Risk Factors” and the other information included in this prospectus for a discussion of factors you should consider carefully before deciding to invest in our common stock.

Proposed Nasdaq Global Market symbol

   “SIBN”

The number of shares of common stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on 280,020,764 shares of common stock outstanding as of March 31, 2017, and excludes:

 

    55,294,071 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options outstanding as of March 31, 2017, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.23 per share;

 

                     shares of common stock issuable upon the net exercise of warrants outstanding as of March 31, 2017, with an exercise price of $0.51 per share, immediately prior to the closing of this offering, assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus;

 

    4,141,369 shares of common stock, as converted, issuable upon the exercise of warrants outstanding as of March 31, 2017, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.48 per share;

 



 

9


Table of Contents
    1,712,363 additional shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2008 Stock Plan, which shares will cease to be available for issuance at the time our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan becomes effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering;

 

    42,502,151 shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, as well as any increases in the number of shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under this plan, which will become effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering; and

 

    9,444,922 shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2017 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as well as any increases in the number of shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under this plan, which will become effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering.

Unless otherwise indicated, all information in this prospectus assumes:

 

    The filing of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and the effectiveness of our amended and restated bylaws upon the closing of this offering;

 

    The conversion of all our outstanding preferred stock as of March 31, 2017, into an aggregate of 217,201,525 shares of our common stock immediately prior to the closing of this offering;

 

    The reclassification of all outstanding shares of our Series 1 common stock and Series 2 common stock into a single class of common stock named “common stock,” which shall have the same voting powers, preferences, rights and qualifications, limitations, and restrictions as the current Series 2 common stock, immediately prior to the closing of this offering;

 

    No exercise of outstanding options and warrants; and

 

    No exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase up to             additional shares of our common stock.

 



 

10


Table of Contents

SUMMARY CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and related notes included within this prospectus. The consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. The consolidated statements of operations data for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2017, and the consolidated balance sheet data at March 31, 2017, are derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in the future and our results for the three months ended March 31, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full fiscal year.

 

    Year Ended December 31,     Three Months Ended March 31,  
              2015                         2016                         2016                         2017            
                (unaudited)  
    (in thousands, except per share data)  

Consolidated Statements of Operations Data:

       

Revenue

  $ 41,173     $ 42,101     $ 9,589     $ 11,426  

Cost of goods sold

    5,398       5,165       1,153       1,434  
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Gross profit

    35,775       36,936       8,436       9,992  
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating expenses:

       

Sales and marketing

    39,799       35,215       8,854       10,273  

Research and development

    8,606       6,380       1,625       1,419  

General and administrative

    13,793       12,906       4,439       3,855  
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

    62,198       54,501       14,918       15,547  
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Loss from operations

    (26,423     (17,565     (6,482     (5,555

Interest and other income (expense), net:

       

Interest income

    22       71       11       33  

Interest expense

    (1,686     (3,308     (817     (945

Other income (expense), net

    (67     213       647       (122
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net loss

    (28,154     (20,589     (6,641     (6,589

Other comprehensive income:

       

Changes in foreign currency translation

    247       67       (178     5  
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Comprehensive loss

  $ (27,907   $ (20,522   $ (6,819   $ (6,584
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net loss per common share, basic and diluted(1)

  $ (0.51   $ (0.35   $ (0.11   $ (0.11
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted-average common shares used to compute basic and diluted net loss per common share(1)

    55,292,845       59,659,307       58,782,930       61,735,139  
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Pro forma net loss per common share basic and diluted (unaudited)(1)

    $       $  
   

 

 

     

 

 

 

Pro forma weighted-average number of common shares used to compute basic and diluted net loss per share (unaudited)(1)

       
   

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

(1) See Note 14 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus for the method used to calculate net loss per common share, basic and diluted, and pro forma net loss per common share, basic and diluted.

 



 

11


Table of Contents
     As of March 31, 2017  
     Actual     Pro
Forma(1)
     Pro Forma
As Adjusted(2)(3)
 
     (in thousands)  

Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:

       

Cash and cash equivalents

   $ 28,732       

Working capital

     23,899       

Total assets

     40,980       

Convertible preferred stock warrant liability

     681       

Total borrowings

     29,389       

Total liabilities

     36,838       

Convertible preferred stock

     118,548       

Total stockholders’ (deficit) equity

     (114,406     

 

(1) The pro forma column reflects (i) the conversion of all outstanding shares of our preferred stock into an aggregate of 217,201,525 shares of common stock and (ii) the issuance of                  shares of common stock upon the net exercise of outstanding warrants with an exercise price of $0.51 per share, immediately prior to the closing of this offering, assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus.
(2) The pro forma as adjusted column further reflects the sale of                  shares of common stock in this offering, assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.
(3) A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) each of pro forma as adjusted cash and cash equivalents, working capital, total assets, and total stockholders’ equity by $        million, assuming the number of shares we are offering, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. We may also increase or decrease the number of shares we are offering. An increase (decrease) of 1,000,000 in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) each of pro forma as adjusted cash and cash equivalents, working capital, total assets, and total stockholders’ equity by $        million, assuming the initial public offering price per share remains the same, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions. The pro forma as adjusted information is illustrative only, and we will adjust this information based on the actual initial public offering price, number of shares offered, and other terms of this offering determined at pricing.

 



 

12


Table of Contents

RISK FACTORS

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this prospectus, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and growth prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations.

Risks Related to Our Business and Our Industry

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception, we expect to continue to incur operating losses in the future, and we may not be able to achieve or sustain future profitability.

We have incurred net losses since our inception in 2008. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2017, we had net losses of $6.6 million and $6.6 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $123.3 million. To date, we have financed operations primarily through private placements of equity securities, certain debt-related financing arrangements and from sales of our products. We have devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development of our products, sales and marketing activities, investments in training and educating surgeons and other healthcare providers and clinical and regulatory matters for our products. There can be no assurances that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue from our existing products or from any of our product candidates in development, and to transition to profitability and generate consistent positive cash flows. Following this offering, we expect that our operating expenses will continue to increase as we continue to build our commercial infrastructure, develop, enhance, and commercialize our existing and new products and incur additional operational and reporting costs associated with being a public company. As a result, we expect to continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve profitability. Furthermore, even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on an ongoing basis. If we do not achieve profitability, it will be more difficult for us to finance our business and accomplish our strategic objectives.

If hospitals, surgeons, and other healthcare providers are unable to obtain adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for procedures performed using our products, adoption of our products may be delayed, and it is unlikely that they will gain widespread acceptance.

Maintaining and growing sales of our products depends on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, including government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private insurance plans, and managed care programs. Hospitals, surgeons, and other healthcare providers that purchase or use medical devices generally rely on third-party payors to pay for all or part of the costs and fees associated with the procedures performed with these devices.

Adequate coverage and reimbursement for procedures performed with our products is central to the acceptance of our current and future products. We may be unable to sell our products on a profitable basis if third-party payors deny coverage, continue to deny coverage or reduce their current levels of payment, or if our costs of production increase faster than increases in reimbursement levels. For example, our sales decreased significantly after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion was assigned to a Category III Current Procedure Terminology, or CPT, code effective July 1, 2013. Many private payors refer to coverage decisions and payment amounts determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, which administers the Medicare program, as guidelines for setting their coverage and reimbursement policies. Future action by CMS or third-party payors may further diminish payments to physicians, outpatient centers, and/or hospitals. In addition, prior to July 1, 2013, the national average Medicare physician fee schedule payment to surgeons for CPT codes commonly used to submit claims for reimbursement for the iFuse Procedure was approximately $1,000. Effective

 

13


Table of Contents

January 1, 2016, the national average Medicare payment for the new Category I CPT code of $577 increased to $718, and the national average payment effective January 1, 2017, is $715. The national average Medicare payment to hospital outpatient departments increased from $10,540 to $14,700 effective January 1, 2017. It is unclear whether this reimbursement amount will negatively affect procedure volumes. For some governmental programs, such as Medicaid, coverage and reimbursement differ from state to state, and some state Medicaid programs may not pay an adequate amount for the procedures performed with our products, if any payment is made at all. As the portion of the U.S. population over the age of 65 and eligible for Medicare continues to grow, we may be more vulnerable to coverage and reimbursement limitations. Private payors that do not follow the Medicare guidelines may adopt different coverage and reimbursement policies for procedures performed with our products. Furthermore, the healthcare industry in the United States has experienced a trend toward cost containment as government and private insurers seek to control healthcare costs by imposing lower payment rates and negotiating reduced contract rates with service providers. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the procedures performed with our products will be reimbursed at an appropriate level or at all.

To the extent we sell our products internationally, market acceptance may depend, in part, upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement within prevailing healthcare payment systems. Reimbursement and healthcare payment systems in international markets vary significantly by country, and include both government-sponsored healthcare and private insurance. We may not obtain international coverage and reimbursement approvals in a timely manner, if at all. Our failure to receive such approvals would negatively impact market acceptance of our products in the international markets in which those approvals are sought.

We may not be able to convince physicians that iFuse is an attractive alternative to our competitors’ products and that our procedure is an attractive alternative to existing surgical and non-surgical treatments of the sacroiliac joint.

Surgeons play the primary role in determining the course of treatment in consultation with their patients and, ultimately, the product that will be used to treat a patient. In order for us to sell our iFuse solution successfully, we must convince surgeons through education and training that treatment with iFuse is beneficial, safe, and cost effective for patients as compared to our competitors’ products. If we are not successful in convincing surgeons of the merits of iFuse, they may not use our product, and we will be unable to increase our sales and achieve or grow profitability.

Historically, most spine surgeons did not include sacroiliac joint pain in their diagnostic work-up because they did not have an adequate surgical procedure to perform for patients diagnosed with the condition. As a result, some patients with lower back pain resulting from sacroiliac joint dysfunction are misdiagnosed. We believe that educating surgeons and other healthcare professionals about the clinical merits and patient benefits of iFuse is an important element of our growth. If we fail to effectively educate surgeons and other medical professionals, they may not include a sacroiliac joint evaluation as part of their diagnosis and, as a result, those patients may continue to receive unnecessary or only non-surgical treatment.

Surgeons may also hesitate to change their medical treatment practices for other reasons, including the following:

 

    lack of experience with minimally invasive procedures;

 

    perceived liability risks generally associated with the use of new products and procedures;

 

    costs associated with the purchase of new products; and

 

    time commitment that may be required for training.

Furthermore, we believe surgeons will not widely use iFuse unless they determine, based on experience, clinical data, and published peer-reviewed publications, that surgical intervention provides benefits or is an attractive alternative to non-surgical treatments of sacroiliac joint dysfunction. In addition, we believe support of

 

14


Table of Contents

our products relies heavily on long-term data showing the benefits of using our products. If we are unable to provide that data, surgeons may not use our products. In such circumstances, we may not achieve expected sales and may be unable to achieve profitability.

Surgeons and payors may not find our clinical evidence to be compelling, which could limit our sales and revenue, and on-going and future research may prove our products to be less safe and effective than initially anticipated.

The products we currently market in the United States have either received premarket clearance under Section 510(k) of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, or are exempt from premarket review. Those marketed in the European Union have been the subject of a CE Certificate of Conformity. The 510(k) clearance process of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, requires us to document that our product is “substantially equivalent” to another 510(k)-cleared products. The 510(k) process is shorter and typically requires the submission of less supporting documentation than other FDA approval processes, such as a premarket approval, or PMA, and does not usually require pre-clinical or clinical studies. Additionally, to date, we have not been required to complete clinical studies in connection with the sale of our products outside the United States. As a result, while there are a number of published studies relating to iFuse and minimally invasive sacroiliac joint surgery that support the safety and effectiveness of our product and the benefits it offers, our clinical studies may lack the size and scope of randomized controlled clinical trials required to support approval of a PMA. For these reasons, surgeons may be slow to adopt our products, third-party payors may be slow to provide coverage, and we may be subject to greater regulatory and product liability risks. Further, future patient studies or clinical experience may indicate that treatment with our products does not improve patient outcomes. Such results would slow the adoption of our products by surgeons, significantly reduce our ability to achieve expected sales, and could prevent us from achieving profitability. Moreover, if future results and experience indicate that our products cause unexpected or serious complications or other unforeseen negative effects, we could be subject to mandatory product recalls, suspension, or withdrawal of FDA clearance, and suspension, variation, or withdrawal of our CE Certificates of Conformity, significant legal liability or harm to our business reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our results or operations and financial condition.

Pricing pressure from our competitors, changes in third-party coverage and reimbursement, healthcare provider consolidation, payor consolidation and the proliferation of “physician owned distributorships” may impact our ability to sell our product at prices necessary to support our current business strategies.

If competitive forces drive down the prices we are able to charge for our product, our profit margins will shrink, which will adversely affect our ability to invest in and grow our business. The sacroiliac joint fusion market has attracted numerous new companies and technologies. As a result of this increased competition, we believe there will be continuing increased pricing pressure with respect to our products.

Even to the extent our product and procedures using our product are currently covered and reimbursed by third-party private and public payors, adverse changes in coverage and reimbursement policies that affect our products, discounts, and number of implants used may also drive our prices down and harm our ability to market and sell our products.

We are unable to predict what changes will be made to the reimbursement methodologies used by third- party payors. We cannot be certain that under current and future payment systems, in which healthcare providers may be reimbursed a set amount based on the type of procedure performed, such as those utilized by Medicare and in many privately managed care systems, the cost of our products will be justified and incorporated into the overall cost of the procedure. In addition, to the extent there is a shift from inpatient setting to outpatient settings, we may experience pricing pressure and a reduction in the number of iFuse Procedures performed.

Consolidation in the healthcare industry, including both third-party payors and healthcare providers, could lead to demands for price concessions or to the exclusion of some suppliers from certain of our markets, which

 

15


Table of Contents

could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition. Because healthcare costs have risen significantly over the past several years, numerous initiatives and reforms initiated by legislators, regulators, and third-party payors to curb these costs have resulted in a consolidation trend in the healthcare industry to aggregate purchasing power. As the healthcare industry consolidates, competition to provide products and services to industry participants has become and will continue to become more intense. This in turn has resulted and will likely continue to result in greater pricing pressures and the exclusion of certain suppliers from important market segments as group purchasing organizations, independent delivery networks, and large single accounts continue to use their market power to consolidate purchasing decisions for hospitals. We expect that market demand, government regulation, third-party coverage, and reimbursement policies and societal pressures will continue to change the worldwide healthcare industry, resulting in further business consolidations and alliances among our customers, which may reduce competition, exert further downward pressure on the prices of our products, and adversely impact our business, results of operations, or financial condition. As we continue to expand into international markets, we will face similar risks relating to adverse changes in coverage and reimbursement procedures and policies in those markets.

Physician-owned distributorships, or PODs, are medical device distributors that are owned, directly or indirectly, by physicians. These physicians profit from selling or arranging the sale of medical devices for use in procedures they perform on their own patients at hospitals that purchase the devices from the POD. We currently do not engage with PODs. The proliferation of physician-owned distributorships could result in increased pricing pressure on our products or harm our ability to sell our products to physicians who own or are affiliated with those distributorships.

We operate in a very competitive business environment, and if we are unable to compete successfully against our existing or potential competitors, our sales and operating results may be negatively affected and we may not grow.

Our currently marketed products are, and any future products we commercialize will likely be, subject to intense competition. The number of competitors that we are aware of marketing sacroiliac joint fusion products in the United States has grown from zero to 18 since 2008. Many of our current and potential competitors are major medical device companies that have substantially greater financial, technical, and marketing resources than we do, and they may succeed in developing products that would render our products obsolete or noncompetitive. In addition, many of these competitors have significantly longer operating history and more established reputations than we do. Our field is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and highly sensitive to the introduction of new products or other market activities of industry participants. Our ability to compete successfully will depend on our ability to develop proprietary products that reach the market in a timely manner, receive adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, and are safer, less invasive, and more effective than alternatives available for similar purposes as demonstrated in peer-reviewed clinical publications. Because of the size of the potential market, we anticipate that other companies will dedicate significant resources to developing competing products.

We believe that our primary competitors currently are Medtronic plc, Globus Medical, Inc., X-Spine Systems, Inc. (which is also distributed by Zimmer under a different trade name), and Zyga Technology, Inc. At any time, these or other industry participants may develop alternative treatments, products or procedures for the treatment of the sacroiliac joint that compete directly or indirectly with our products. They may also develop and patent processes or products earlier than we can or obtain domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals and CE Certificates of Conformity for competing products in the European Economic Area, or EEA, more rapidly than we can, which could impair our ability to develop and commercialize similar processes or products. If alternative treatments are, or are perceived to be, superior to our products, sales of our products and our results of operations could be negatively affected.

 

16


Table of Contents

Some of our larger competitors are either publicly traded or divisions or subsidiaries of publicly traded companies. These competitors may enjoy several competitive advantages over us, including:

 

    greater financial, human, and other resources for product research and development, sales and marketing and legal matters;

 

    significantly greater name recognition;

 

    established relationships with surgeons, hospitals, and other healthcare providers;

 

    large and established sales and marketing and distribution networks;

 

    greater experience in obtaining and maintaining domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals, or CE Certificates of Conformity for products and product enhancements;

 

    more expansive portfolios of intellectual property rights; and

 

    greater ability to cross-sell their products or to incentivize hospitals or surgeons to use their products.

New participants have increasingly entered the medical device industry. Many of these new competitors specialize in a specific product or focus on a particular market segment, making it more difficult for us to increase our overall market position. The frequent introduction by competitors of products that are or claim to be superior to our products or that are alternatives to our existing or planned products may make it difficult to differentiate the benefits of our products over competing products. In addition, the entry of multiple new products and competitors may lead some of our competitors to employ pricing strategies that could adversely affect the pricing of our products and pricing in the market generally.

As a result, without the timely introduction of new products and enhancements, our products may become obsolete over time. If we are unable to develop innovative new products, maintain competitive pricing, and offer products that surgeons and other physicians perceive to be as reliable as those of our competitors, our sales or margins could decrease, thereby harming our business.

We currently manufacture and sell only one family of products, which could negatively affect our operations and financial condition.

We do not sell any product other than iFuse and related tools and instruments. Therefore, we are solely dependent on widespread market adoption of iFuse and we will continue to be dependent on the success of this single product for the foreseeable future. There can be no assurance that iFuse will gain a substantial degree of market acceptance among surgeons, patients or healthcare providers. Our failure to successfully increase sales of iFuse or any other event impeding our ability to sell iFuse, would result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and continuing operations.

If we are unable to maintain and expand our network of direct sales representatives and third-party distributors, we may not be able to generate anticipated sales.

As of March 31, 2017, our U.S. sales force consisted of 48 sales representatives directly employed by us and 13 third-party distributors. As of March 31, 2017, our international sales force consisted of 12 sales representatives and 28 exclusive third-party distributors, which together have had sales in 27 countries through March 31, 2017. Our operating results are directly dependent upon the sales and marketing efforts of both our direct sales force and of our third-party distributors.

As we launch new products and increase our marketing efforts with respect to existing products, we will need to expand the reach of our marketing and sales networks. Our future success will depend largely on our ability to continue to hire, train, retain and motivate skilled direct sales representatives and third-party distributors with significant technical knowledge in various areas, such as spine health and treatment. New hires

 

17


Table of Contents

require training and take time to achieve full productivity. If we fail to train new hires adequately, or if we experience high turnover in our sales force in the future, we cannot be certain that new hires will become as productive as may be necessary to maintain or increase our sales. Our intention is for our direct sales representatives and third-party distributors to develop long-lasting relationships with the surgeons they serve. If our direct sales representatives or third-party distributors fail to adequately promote, market and sell our products or decide to leave or cease to do business with us, our sales could significantly decrease.

We face significant challenges and risks in managing our geographically dispersed distribution network and retaining the individuals who make up that network. Some of our international third-party distributors account for a significant portion of our international sales volume, and if any such third-party distributor were to cease to distribute our products, our sales could be adversely affected. In such a situation, we may need to seek alternative third-party distributors or increase our reliance on our direct sales representatives, which may not prevent our sales from being adversely affected. If a direct sales representative or third-party distributor were to depart and be retained by one of our competitors, we may be unable to prevent them from helping competitors solicit business from our existing customers, which could further adversely affect our sales. Because of the intense competition for their services, we may be unable to recruit or retain additional qualified third-party distributors or to hire additional direct sales representatives to work with us. Furthermore, we may not be able to enter into agreements with them on favorable or commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Failure to hire or retain qualified direct sales representatives or third-party distributors would prevent us from expanding our business and generating sales.

In addition, distribution arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document, especially outside the United States. We may not be able to negotiate distribution arrangements on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of our products, delay their potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our products or bring them to market and generate revenue.

If we are unable to expand our sales and marketing capabilities domestically and internationally, we may not be able to effectively commercialize our products, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

We have a limited operating history and may face difficulties encountered by early stage companies in new and rapidly evolving markets.

We were formed in 2008. Accordingly, we have a limited operating history upon which to base an evaluation of our business and prospects. In assessing our prospects, you must consider the risks and difficulties frequently encountered by early stage companies in new and rapidly evolving markets, particularly companies engaged in the development and sales of medical devices. These risks include our inability to:

 

    increase coverage by third-party, private, and government payors;

 

    establish and increase awareness of our brand and strengthen customer loyalty;

 

    obtain domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals, and CE Certificates of Conformity;

 

    conformity to commercialize new products and enhance our existing products;

 

    manage rapidly changing and expanding operations;

 

    grow our direct sales force and increase the number of our third-party distributors to expand sales of our products in the United States and in targeted international markets;

 

18


Table of Contents
    implement and successfully execute our business and marketing strategy;

 

    respond effectively to competitive pressures and developments;

 

    continue to develop and enhance our products and product candidates;

 

    expand our presence and commence operations in international markets;

 

    perform clinical research and trials on our existing products and current and future product candidates; and

 

    attract and retain qualified personnel.

We can also be negatively affected by general economic conditions. Because of our limited operating history, we may not have insight into trends that could emerge and negatively affect our business. As a result of these or other risks, our business strategy might not be successful.

Our sales volumes and our operating results may fluctuate over the course of the year.

We have experienced and continue to experience meaningful variability in our sales and gross profit from quarter to quarter, as well as within each quarter, as a result of a number of factors, including, among other things:

 

    payor coverage and reimbursement;

 

    the number of products sold in the quarter;

 

    the demand for, and pricing of, our products and the products of our competitors;

 

    the timing of or failure to obtain domestic and international regulatory clearances, approvals, or CE Certificates of Conformity to commercialize new products and enhance our existing products;

 

    costs, benefits, and timing of new product introductions;

 

    increased competition;

 

    the availability and cost of components and materials;

 

    the number of selling days in the quarter;

 

    fluctuation in foreign currency exchange rates; and

 

    impairment and other special charges.

If our business strategy proves to be flawed or if we do not successfully implement our business strategy, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Our business strategy was based on assumptions about the market that might prove wrong. We believe that various demographics and industry-specific trends will help drive growth in the market and our business, but these demographics and trends have been and will continue to be uncertain. Actual demand for our products could differ materially from projected demand if our assumptions regarding these factors prove to be incorrect or do not materialize, or if alternative treatments to those offered by our products gain widespread acceptance.

To implement our business strategy we need to, among other things, develop and introduce new products, find new applications for and improve our existing products, obtain new domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals and CE Certificates of Conformity and domestic and international regulatory clearance or approval for new products and applications, and educate surgeons or payors about the clinical benefits and cost effectiveness of our products. We may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy. Also, our strategy of focusing exclusively on the sacroiliac joint market may limit our ability to grow. In addition, in order

 

19


Table of Contents

to increase our sales, we will need to commercialize additional products and expand our direct and third-party distributor sales forces in existing and new regions, all of which could result in our becoming subject to additional or different foreign and domestic regulatory requirements, with which we may not be able to comply. Moreover, we may decide to alter or discontinue aspects of our business strategy and may adopt different strategies due to business or competitive factors not currently foreseen, such as new medical technologies that would make our products obsolete. Any failure to implement our business strategy may adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Our business could suffer if we lose the services of key members of our senior management, key advisors or personnel.

We are dependent upon the continued services of key members of our senior management and a limited number of key advisors and personnel. In particular, we are highly dependent on the skills and leadership of our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Jeffrey W. Dunn. The loss of members of our senior management team, key advisors or personnel, or our inability to attract or retain other qualified personnel or advisors, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, several of the members of our executive management team are not subject to non-competition agreements that restrict their ability to compete with us. Accordingly, the adverse effect resulting from the loss of certain executives could be compounded by our inability to prevent them from competing with us.

Although it will be subject to lock-up agreements and other restrictions on trading, a portion of the equity of our management team will not contain other contractual transfer restrictions at the time of this offering and may become tradable after the expiration of the 180-day lock-up agreement with the underwriters. This liquidity may represent material wealth to such individuals and impact retention and focus of existing key members of management.

Our products and product candidates may have undesirable side effects which may require them to be taken off the market, require them to include safety warnings or otherwise limit their sales.

Unforeseen adverse events related to our products or product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if cleared, approved, or subject to CE Certificate of Conformity, after the product has been marketed. In clinical research, the most common adverse event related to our implant was leg pain resulting from misplacement. The most common adverse event for our implant procedure has been minor wound infections. Additional adverse effects from iFuse or any of our other products or product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if approved, cleared, or subject to CE Certificate of Conformity, after the product has been marketed.

If we or others later identify adverse events caused by our products:

 

    sales of the product may decrease significantly and we may not achieve the anticipated market share;

 

    regulatory authorities or our Notified Body may require changes to the labeling of our product. This may include the addition of labeling statements, specific warnings, and contraindications and issuing field alerts to physicians and patients;

 

    we may be required to change instructions regarding the way the product is implanted or conduct additional clinical trials;

 

    we may be subject to limitations on how we may promote the product;

 

    regulatory authorities may require us to take our approved product off the market (temporarily or permanently) or to conduct other field safety corrective actions;

 

    we may be required to modify our product;

 

20


Table of Contents
    we may be subject to litigation fines or product liability claims; and

 

    our reputation may suffer.

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from the sale of our products.

Various factors outside our direct control may adversely affect manufacturing, sterilization, and distribution of our products.

The manufacture, sterilization, and distribution of our products is challenging. Changes that our suppliers may make outside the purview of our direct control can have an impact on our processes, quality of our products, and the successful delivery of products to our customers. Mistakes and mishandling are not uncommon and can affect supply and delivery. Some of these risks include:

 

    failure to complete sterilization on time or in compliance with the required regulatory standards;

 

    transportation and import and export risk;

 

    delays in analytical results or failure of analytical techniques that we will depend on for quality control and release of products;

 

    natural disasters, labor disputes, financial distress, raw material availability, issues with facilities and equipment, or other forms of disruption to business operations affecting our manufacturers or suppliers; and

 

    latent defects that may become apparent after products have been released and that may result in a recall of such products.

If any of these risks were to materialize, our ability to provide our products to customers on a timely basis would be adversely impacted.

We are dependent on a limited number of third-party suppliers, some of them single-source and some of them in single locations, for most of our products and components, and the loss of any of these suppliers, or their inability to provide us with an adequate supply of materials in a timely and cost effective manner, could materially adversely affect our business.

We rely on third-party suppliers to supply substantially all of our products. For us to be successful, our suppliers must be able to provide us with products and components in substantial quantities, in compliance with regulatory requirements, in accordance with agreed upon specifications, at acceptable prices, and on a timely basis. We do not have long-term supply contracts for some of our suppliers, and in some cases, even where we do have agreements in place, we purchase important parts of the iFuse Implant System from a single supplier. Therefore, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain sufficient quantities of product in the future.

In addition, our anticipated growth could strain the ability of our suppliers to deliver an increasingly large supply of products, materials, and components. Suppliers often experience difficulties in scaling up production, including financial issues, or problems with production yields and quality control and assurance. For example, from time to time, we have experienced certain delays and may experience delays from our suppliers in the future.

We generally use a small number of suppliers for our instruments and rely on one supplier, Orchid Bio-Coat, a division of Orchid Orthopedic Solutions LLC, for our iFuse Implants. Our dependence on such a limited number of suppliers exposes us to risks, including, among other things:

 

    third-party contract manufacturers or suppliers may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or make errors in manufacturing that could negatively affect the safety or effectiveness of our products or cause delays in shipments of our products;

 

21


Table of Contents
    we or our third-party manufacturers and suppliers may not be able to respond to unanticipated changes in customer orders, and if orders do not match forecasts, we or our suppliers may have excess or inadequate inventory of materials and components;

 

    we or our third-party manufacturers and suppliers may be subject to price fluctuations due to a lack of long-term supply arrangements for key components;

 

    we or our third-party manufacturers and suppliers may lose access to critical services and components, resulting in an interruption in the manufacture, assembly and shipment of our systems;

 

    we may experience delays in delivery by our third-party manufacturers and suppliers due to changes in demand from us or their other customers;

 

    fluctuations in demand for products that our third-party manufacturers and suppliers manufacture for others may affect their ability or willingness to deliver components to us in a timely manner;

 

    our third-party manufacturers and suppliers may wish to discontinue supplying components or services to us for risk management reasons;

 

    we may not be able to find new or alternative components or reconfigure our system and manufacturing processes in a timely manner if the necessary components become unavailable; and

 

    our third-party manufacturers and suppliers may encounter financial hardships unrelated to our demand, which could inhibit their ability to fulfill our orders and meet our requirements.

If any one or more of these risks materialize, it could significantly increase our costs and impact our ability to meet demand for our products. If we are unable to satisfy commercial demand for our system in a timely manner, our ability to generate revenue would be impaired, market acceptance of our products could be adversely affected, and customers may instead purchase or use our competitors’ products. Additionally, we could be forced to seek alternative sources of supply.

In addition, most of our supply and manufacturing agreements do not have minimum manufacturing or purchase obligations. As such, we have no obligation to buy any given quantity of products, and our suppliers have no obligation to sell us or to manufacture for us any given quantity of components or products. As a result, our ability to purchase adequate quantities of components or our products may be limited and we may not be able to convince suppliers to make components and products available to us. Our suppliers may also encounter problems that limit their ability to supply components or manufacture products for us, including financial difficulties, damage to their manufacturing equipment or facilities, or product discontinuations. As a result, there is a risk that certain components could be discontinued and no longer available to us. We may be required to make significant “last time” purchases of component inventory that is being discontinued by the supplier to ensure supply continuity. If we fail to obtain sufficient quantities of high quality components to meet demand for our products in a timely manner or on terms acceptable to us, we would have to seek alternative sources of supply. Securing a replacement third-party manufacturer or supplier could be difficult. The introduction of new or alternative manufacturers or suppliers also may require design changes to our iFuse that are subject to domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals and the review of our Notified Body.

Because of the nature of our internal quality control requirements, regulatory requirements, and the custom and proprietary nature of the parts, we may not be able to quickly engage additional or replacement suppliers for many of our critical components. We may also be required to assess any potential new manufacturer’s compliance with all applicable regulations and guidelines, which could further impede our ability to manufacture our products in a timely manner. As a result, we could incur increased production costs, experience delays in deliveries of our products, suffer damage to our reputation, and experience an adverse effect on our business and financial results. Failure of any of our third-party suppliers to meet our product demand level would limit our ability to meet our sales commitments to our customers and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

22


Table of Contents

We may also have difficulty obtaining similar components from other suppliers that are acceptable to the FDA our Notified Body the competent authorities or countries of the countries of the EEA, or other foreign regulatory authorities, and the failure of our suppliers to comply with strictly enforced regulatory requirements could expose us to delays in obtaining clearances or approvals, regulatory action including warning letters, product recalls, termination of distribution, product seizures, civil, administrative, or criminal penalties and the suspension, variation, or withdrawal of our CE Certificates of Conformity. We could incur delays while we locate and engage qualified alternative suppliers, and we may be unable to engage alternative suppliers on favorable terms or at all. Any such disruption or increased expenses could harm our commercialization efforts and adversely affect our ability to generate sales.

In addition, each of our third-party suppliers operates at a facility in a single location and substantially all of our inventory of component supplies and finished goods is held at these locations. We, and our suppliers, take precautions to safeguard facilities, including acquiring insurance, employing back-up generators, adopting health and safety protocols, and utilizing off-site storage of computer data. However, vandalism, terrorism, or a natural or other disaster, such as an earthquake, fire, or flood, could damage or destroy equipment or our inventory of component supplies or finished products, cause substantial delays in our operations, result in the loss of key information, and cause us to incur additional expenses. Our insurance may not cover our losses in any particular case. In addition, regardless of the level of insurance coverage, damage to our or our suppliers’ facilities could harm our business, financial condition, and operating results.

As our sales grow, we may encounter problems or delays in the assembly of our products or fail to meet certain regulatory requirements which could result in an adverse effect on our business and financial results.

To become profitable, we must assemble our products in adequate quantities in compliance with regulatory requirements and at an acceptable cost. Increasing our capacity to assemble and test our products will require us to improve internal efficiencies. We may encounter a number of difficulties in increasing our assembly and testing capacity, including:

 

    managing production yields;

 

    maintaining quality control and assurance;

 

    providing component and service availability;

 

    maintaining adequate control policies and procedures;

 

    hiring and retaining qualified personnel; and

 

    complying with state, federal, and foreign regulations.

If we are unable to satisfy commercial demand for our iFuse solution due to our inability to assemble and test, our ability to generate revenue would be impaired, market acceptance of our products could be adversely affected and customers may instead purchase or use our competitors’ products.

If we do not enhance our product offerings through our research and development efforts, we may be unable to compete effectively.

In order to increase our market share in the sacroiliac joint fusion market, we must enhance and broaden our product offerings in response to changing customer demands and competitive pressures and technologies. We might not be able to successfully develop, obtain domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals, or CE Certificates of Conformity for, or market new products, and our future products might not be accepted by the surgeons or the third-party payors who reimburse for many of the procedures performed with our products. The success of any new product offering or enhancement to an existing product will depend on numerous factors, including our ability to:

 

    properly identify and anticipate surgeon and patient needs;

 

23


Table of Contents
    develop and introduce new products or product enhancements in a timely manner;

 

    adequately protect our intellectual property and avoid infringing upon the intellectual property rights of third parties;

 

    demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of new products; and

 

    obtain the necessary domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals and CE Certificates of Conformity for new products or product enhancements.

If we do not develop and obtain domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals and CE Certificates of Conformity for new products or product enhancements in time to meet market demand, or if there is insufficient demand for these products or enhancements, our results of operations will suffer. Our research and development efforts may require a substantial investment of time and resources before we are adequately able to determine the commercial viability of a new product, technology, material, or other innovation. In addition, even if we are able to successfully develop enhancements or new generations of our products, these enhancements or new generations of products may not produce sales in excess of the costs of development and they may be quickly rendered obsolete by changing customer preferences or the introduction by our competitors of products embodying new technologies or features.

We are required to maintain adequate levels of inventory, the failure of which could consume our resources and reduce our cash flows.

As a result of the need to maintain adequate levels of inventory, we are subject to the risk of inventory obsolescence. Many of our products come in sets, which feature components in a variety of sizes so that the implant or device may be customized to the patient’s needs. In order to market our products effectively, we often maintain and provide surgeons and hospitals with back-up products and products of different sizes. For each surgery, fewer than all of the components of the set are used, and therefore certain portions of the set may become obsolete before they can be used. In the event that a substantial portion of our inventory becomes obsolete, it could have a material adverse effect on our earnings and cash flows due to the resulting costs associated with the inventory impairment charges and costs required to replace such inventory.

The size and future growth in the market for iFuse has not been established with precision and may be smaller than we estimate, possibly materially. In addition, our estimates of cost savings to the economy and healthcare system as a result of the iFuse Procedure are based on our internal estimates and market research and could also be smaller than we estimate, possibly materially. If our estimates and projections overestimate the size of this market or cost savings, our sales growth may be adversely affected.

We are not aware of an independent third-party study that reliably reports the potential market size for iFuse or cost savings as a result of the iFuse Procedure. Therefore, our estimates of the size and future growth in the market for our iFuse products, including cost savings to the economy overall, including patients and employers, and to the healthcare system and the number of people currently suffering from lower back pain who may benefit from and be amenable to our iFuse Procedure, is based on a number of internal and third-party studies, surveys, reports, and estimates. While we believe these factors have historically provided and may continue to provide us with effective tools in estimating the total market for our iFuse products and procedures and health cost savings, these estimates may not be correct and the conditions supporting our estimates may change at any time, thereby reducing the predictive accuracy of these underlying factors. For example, the surveys we have conducted are based on a small number of respondents and are not statistically significant and may have other limitations. The actual incidence of lower back pain, and the actual demand for our products or competitive products, could differ materially from our projections if our assumptions and estimates are incorrect. As a result, our estimates of the size and future growth in the market for our iFuse products may prove to be incorrect. In addition, actual health cost savings to the healthcare system as a result of the iFuse Procedure may materially differ from those presented in this prospectus. If the actual number of people with lower back pain who would benefit from our

 

24


Table of Contents

iFuse products and the size and future growth in the market for iFuse products and related costs savings to the healthcare system is smaller than we have estimated, it may impair our projected sales growth and have an adverse impact on our business.

Our results of operations could suffer if we are unable to manage our planned international expansion effectively.

Expansion into international markets is an element of our business strategy and involves risk. The sale and shipment of our products across international borders, as well as the purchase of components and products from international sources, subject us to extensive U.S. and foreign governmental trade, import, and export and customs regulations and laws. Compliance with these regulations and laws is costly and exposes us to penalties for non-compliance. Other laws and regulations that can significantly affect us include various anti-bribery laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, or UKBA, anti- boycott laws, anti-money laundering laws, and regulations relating to economic sanctions imposed by the United States, including the Office of Foreign Asset Control of the U.S. Treasury. Any failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory obligations in the United States or abroad could adversely affect us in a variety of ways that include, but are not limited to, significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, including imprisonment of individuals, fines and penalties, denial of export privileges, seizure of shipments and restrictions on certain business activities. Also, the failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory obligations could result in the disruption of our distribution and sales activities.

In addition, some of the countries in which we sell or plan to sell our products are, to some degree, subject to various risks, including:

 

    exposure to different legal and regulatory standards;

 

    lack of stringent protection of intellectual property;

 

    obstacles to obtaining domestic and foreign export, import, and other governmental approvals, permits, and licenses and compliance with foreign laws;

 

    potentially adverse tax consequences and the complexities of foreign value-added tax systems;

 

    adverse changes in tariffs and trade restrictions;

 

    limitations on the repatriation of earnings;

 

    difficulties in staffing and managing foreign operations;

 

    transportation delays and difficulties of managing international distribution channels;

 

    longer collection periods and difficulties in collecting receivables from foreign entities;

 

    increased financing costs;

 

    currency risks; and

 

    political, social, and economic instability and increased security concerns.

These risks may limit or disrupt our expansion, restrict the movement of funds or result in the deprivation of contractual rights or the taking of property by nationalization or expropriation without fair compensation.

Our goal of a successful international expansion depends, in part, on our ability to develop and implement policies and strategies that are effective in anticipating and managing these and other risks in the countries in which we plan to do business. Failure to manage these and other risks may have a material adverse effect on our operations in any particular country and on our business as a whole.

 

25


Table of Contents

In the future our products may become obsolete, which would negatively affect operations and financial condition.

The medical device industry is characterized by rapid and significant change. There can be no assurance that other companies will not succeed in developing or marketing devices, and products that are more effective than our iFuse system or that would render the iFuse system obsolete or noncompetitive. Additionally, new surgical procedures, medications and other therapies could be developed that replace or reduce the importance of our product. Accordingly, our success will depend in part on our ability to respond quickly to medical and changes through the development and introduction of new products. Product development involves a high degree of risk and there can be no assurance that our new product development efforts will result in any commercially successful products.

If we experience significant disruptions in our information technology systems, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be adversely affected.

The efficient operation of our business depends on our information technology systems. We rely on our information technology systems to effectively manage:

 

    sales and marketing, accounting, and financial functions;

 

    inventory management;

 

    engineering and product development tasks; and

 

    our research and development data.

Our information technology systems are vulnerable to damage or interruption from:

 

    earthquakes, fires, floods, and other natural disasters;

 

    terrorist attacks and attacks by computer viruses or hackers;

 

    power losses; and

 

    computer systems, or Internet, telecommunications, or data network failures.

The failure of our information technology systems to perform as we anticipate or our failure to effectively implement new systems could disrupt our entire operation and could result in decreased sales, increased overhead costs, excess inventory and product shortages, and legal liability issues, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations, and financial condition.

In addition, we accept payments for many of our sales through credit card transactions, which are handled through a third-party payment processor. As a result, we are subject to a number of risks related to credit card payments. As a result of these transactions, we pay interchange and other fees, which may increase over time and could require us to either increase the prices we charge for our products or experience an increase in our costs and expenses. In addition, as part of the payment processing process, we transmit our customers’ credit card information to our third-party payment processor. We may in the future become subject to lawsuits or other proceedings for purportedly fraudulent transactions arising out of the actual or alleged theft of our customers’ credit card information if the security of our third-party credit card payment processor is breached. We and our third-party credit card payment processor are also subject to payment card association operating rules, certification requirements and rules governing electronic funds transfers, which could change or be reinterpreted to make it difficult or impossible for us to comply. If we or our third-party credit card payment processor fail to comply with these rules or requirements, we may be subject to fines and higher transaction fees and lose our ability to accept credit card payments from our customers, and there may be an adverse impact on our business.

 

26


Table of Contents

We may seek to grow our business through acquisitions of or investments in new or complementary businesses, products or technologies, and the failure to manage acquisitions or investments, or the failure to integrate them with our existing business, could have a material adverse effect on us.

From time to time, we expect to consider opportunities to acquire or make investments in other technologies, products, and businesses that may enhance our capabilities, complement our current products, or expand the breadth of our markets or customer base. Potential and completed acquisitions and strategic investments involve numerous risks, including:

 

    problems assimilating the purchased technologies, products, or business operations;

 

    issues maintaining uniform standards, procedures, controls, and policies;

 

    unanticipated costs and liabilities associated with acquisitions;

 

    diversion of management’s attention from our core business;

 

    adverse effects on existing business relationships with suppliers and customers;

 

    risks associated with entering new markets in which we have limited or no experience;

 

    potential loss of key employees of acquired businesses; and

 

    increased legal and accounting compliance costs.

We have no current commitments with respect to any acquisition or investment. We do not know if we will be able to identify acquisitions we deem suitable, whether we will be able to successfully complete any such acquisitions on favorable terms or at all, or whether we will be able to successfully integrate any acquired business, product, or technology into our business or retain any key personnel, suppliers, or distributors. Our ability to successfully grow through acquisitions depends upon our ability to identify, negotiate, complete, and integrate suitable target businesses and to obtain any necessary financing. These efforts could be expensive and time-consuming, and may disrupt our ongoing business and prevent management from focusing on our operations. If we are unable to successfully integrate any acquired businesses, products, or technologies effectively, our business, results of operations, and financial condition will be materially adversely affected.

We may enter into collaborations, in-licensing arrangements, joint ventures, strategic alliances, or partnerships with third-parties that may not result in the development of commercially viable products or the generation of significant future revenue.

In the ordinary course of our business, we may enter into collaborations, in-licensing arrangements, joint ventures, strategic alliances, partnerships, or other arrangements to develop products and to pursue new markets. We have not entered into any collaboration arrangements to date. Proposing, negotiating, and implementing collaborations, in-licensing arrangements, joint ventures, strategic alliances, or partnerships may be a lengthy and complex process. Other companies, including those with substantially greater financial, marketing, sales, technology, or other business resources, may compete with us for these opportunities or arrangements. We may not identify, secure, or complete any such transactions or arrangements in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, on acceptable terms or at all. We have limited institutional knowledge and experience with respect to these business development activities, and we may also not realize the anticipated benefits of any such transaction or arrangement. In particular, these collaborations may not result in the development of products that achieve commercial success or result in significant revenue and could be terminated prior to developing any products.

Additionally, we may not be in a position to exercise sole decision making authority regarding the transaction or arrangement, which could create the potential risk of creating impasses on decisions, and our future collaborators may have economic or business interests or goals that are, or that may become, inconsistent with our business interests or goals. It is possible that conflicts may arise with our collaborators, such as conflicts concerning the achievement of performance milestones, or the interpretation of significant terms under any

 

27


Table of Contents

agreement, such as those related to financial obligations or the ownership or control of intellectual property developed during the collaboration. If any conflicts arise with any future collaborators, they may act in their self- interest, which may be adverse to our best interest, and they may breach their obligations to us. In addition, we may have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that any future collaborators devote to our or their future products.

Disputes between us and our collaborators may result in litigation or arbitration which would increase our expenses and divert the attention of our management. Further, these transactions and arrangements will be contractual in nature and will generally be terminable under the terms of the applicable agreements and, in such event, we may not continue to have rights to the products relating to such transaction or arrangement or may need to purchase such rights at a premium. If we enter into in-bound intellectual property license agreements, we may not be able to fully protect the licensed intellectual property rights or maintain those licenses. Future licensors could retain the right to prosecute and defend the intellectual property rights licensed to us, in which case we would depend on the ability of our licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce intellectual property protection for the licensed intellectual property. These licensors may determine not to pursue litigation against other companies or may pursue such litigation less aggressively than we would. Further, entering into such license agreements could impose various diligence, commercialization, royalty, or other obligations on us. Future licensors may allege that we have breached our license agreement with them, and accordingly seek to terminate our license, which could adversely affect our competitive business position and harm our business prospects.

Risks Related to Our Financial Results and Need for Financing

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Our recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, an explanatory paragraph was included in the report on our financial statements as of, and for the year ended, December 31, 2016, describing the existence of substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We will need to generate significant sales to achieve profitability and we might not be able to do so. Our expected future capital requirements may depend on many factors including expanding our surgeon base, the expansion of our salesforce, and the timing and extent of spending on the development of our technology to increase our product offerings. We may seek funds through borrowings or through additional rounds of financing, including private or public equity or debt offerings. Any future debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. Furthermore, we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital or generate sufficient cash from operations to adequately fund our operations, we will need to curtail planned activities to reduce costs, which will likely harm our ability to execute on our business plan and continue operations.

Our future capital needs are uncertain and we may need to raise additional funds in the future, and such funds may not be available on acceptable terms or at all.

We believe that our current cash and cash equivalents, including the proceeds from this offering together with the cash to be generated from expected product sales, will be sufficient to meet our projected operating requirements for the next 12 months. However, continued expansion of our business will be expensive and we may seek additional funds from public and private stock offerings, borrowings under our existing or future credit facilities or other sources. Our capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

 

    the revenues generated by sales of our products;

 

    the costs associated with expanding our sales and marketing efforts;

 

    the expenses we incur in manufacturing and selling our products;

 

28


Table of Contents
    the costs of developing and commercializing new products or technologies;

 

    the cost of obtaining and maintaining domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals, or CE Certificates of Conformity for our products and products in development;

 

    the number and timing of acquisitions and other strategic transactions;

 

    the costs associated with our planned international expansion;

 

    the costs associated with increased capital expenditures, including instrument sets to support surgeries; and

 

    unanticipated general and administrative expenses.

As a result of these factors, we may seek to raise additional capital, and such capital may not be available on favorable terms, or at all. Furthermore, if we issue equity or convertible debt securities to raise additional capital, our existing stockholders may experience dilution, and the holders of new equity or convertible debt securities may have rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of our existing stockholders. If we cannot raise capital on acceptable terms, we may not be able to develop or enhance our products, execute our business plan, take advantage of future opportunities, or respond to competitive pressures, changes in our supplier relationships, or unanticipated customer requirements. Any of these events could adversely affect our ability to achieve our development and commercialization goals, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Our recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our financial statements as of, and for the year ended, December 31, 2016, describing the existence of substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We believe that the successful completion of this offering will eliminate this doubt and enable us to continue as a going concern; however, if we are unable to raise sufficient capital in this offering, we may need to obtain alternative financing or significantly modify our operational plans for us to continue as a going concern. Our expected future capital requirements may depend on many factors including expanding our surgeon base, the expansion of our salesforce, and the timing and extent of spending on the development of our technology to increase our product offerings. We may need additional funding to fund our operations but additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms on a timely basis, if at all. We may seek funds through borrowings or through additional rounds of financing, including private or public equity or debt offerings. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience dilution. Any future debt financing into which we enter may impose upon us additional covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, repurchase our common stock, make certain investments and engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset sale transactions. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. Furthermore, we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital or generate sufficient cash from operations to adequately fund our operations, we will need to curtail planned activities to reduce costs, which will likely harm our ability to execute on our business plan.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly.

Our operating results are difficult to predict and may be subject to quarterly fluctuations. Our sales and results of operations will be affected by numerous factors, including those set forth in “Risk Factors” as well as:

 

    our ability to drive increased sales of our products;

 

    our ability to establish and maintain an effective and dedicated sales force;

 

    pricing pressure applicable to our products, including adverse third-party coverage and reimbursement outcomes;

 

29


Table of Contents
    results of clinical research and trials on our existing products and products in development;

 

    the mix of our products sold because profit margins differ amongst our products;

 

    timing of new product offerings, acquisitions, licenses or other significant events by us or our competitors;

 

    the ability of our suppliers to timely provide us with an adequate supply of materials and components;

 

    the evolving product offerings of our competitors;

 

    factors that may affect the sale of our products, including seasonality and budgets of our customers;

 

    domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals, or CE Certificates of Conformity, and legislative changes affecting the products we may offer or those of our competitors;

 

    interruption in the manufacturing or distribution of our products;

 

    the effect of competing technological, industry and market developments;

 

    changes in our ability to obtain domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals, or CE Certificates of Conformity for our products;

 

    our ability to expand the geographic reach of our sales and marketing efforts; and

 

    the costs of maintaining adequate insurance coverage, including product liability insurance.

Some of the products we may seek to develop and introduce in the future will require FDA clearance or approval before commercialization in the United States, and commercialization of such products outside of the United States would likely require additional regulatory approvals, or Certificates of Conformity and import licenses. As a result, it will be difficult for us to forecast demand for these products with any degree of certainty. In addition, we will be increasing our operating expenses as we expand our commercial capabilities. Accordingly, we may experience significant, unanticipated quarterly losses. If our quarterly or annual operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly or annual fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our common stock to fluctuate substantially. Quarterly comparisons of our financial results may not always be meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

We may not be able to access the capital we need under our current credit facilities on a timely basis or at all.

As of the date of this prospectus, we had total borrowings of $30.2 million, which is the maximum currently available to us under the term loan component of our credit facility with Oxford Finance LLC, or Oxford, and Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB. We have an additional line of credit for the lesser of $4.0 million or 80% of the amount of certain customer accounts receivable that we can draw from the same institutions. There can be no assurance that we will have access to the capital we will need for our business.

Prolonged negative economic conditions in domestic and global markets may adversely affect us, our suppliers, counterparties, and consumers, which could harm our financial position.

Global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme disruptions in the past decade, including severely diminished liquidity and availability of credit, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. Credit and financial markets and confidence in economic conditions might deteriorate again. Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by such an economic downturn and volatile business environment and unpredictable and unstable market conditions. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our current service providers, suppliers and other partners may not continue to operate, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget. Any lender that is obligated to provide funding to us under any existing or future credit

 

30


Table of Contents

agreement with us may not be able to provide funding in a timely manner, or at all, when we require it. The cost of, or lack of, available credit or equity financing could impact our ability to develop sufficient liquidity to maintain or grow our company, which in turn may adversely affect our business, results of operations, or financial condition. We also manage cash and cash equivalents through a single financial institution in the United States. There may be a risk of loss on investments based on the volatility of the underlying instruments that will prevent us from recovering the full principal of our investments. These negative changes in domestic and global economic conditions or additional disruptions of either or both of the financial and credit markets may also affect third-party payors and may have a material adverse effect on our stock price, business, results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Our existing credit facilities contain restrictive covenants that may limit our operating flexibility.

Our existing credit facilities with Oxford and SVB contain certain restrictive covenants that limit our ability to transfer or dispose of assets, merge with other companies or consummate certain changes of control, acquire other companies, pay dividends, incur additional indebtedness and liens, transfer assets above a certain level to our subsidiaries, experience changes in management, and enter into new businesses. We therefore may not be able to engage in any of the foregoing transactions unless we obtain the consent of the lender or terminate the credit facility. There is no guarantee that we will be able to generate sufficient cash flow or sales to meet the financial covenants or pay the principal and interest on any such debt. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that future working capital, borrowings, or equity financing will be available to repay or refinance any such debt.

Risks Related to Our Legal and Regulatory Environment

We, our suppliers, and our third-party manufacturers are subject to extensive governmental regulation both in the United States and abroad and failure to comply with applicable requirements could cause our business to suffer.

The medical device industry is regulated extensively by governmental authorities, principally the FDA and corresponding state and foreign regulatory agencies. The FDA and other U.S. and foreign governmental agencies regulate, among other things, with respect to medical devices:

 

    design, development, and manufacturing;

 

    testing, labeling, content, and language of instructions for use and storage;

 

    clinical trials;

 

    product safety;

 

    marketing, sales, and distribution;

 

    premarket clearance and approval;

 

    conformity assessment procedures;

 

    record keeping procedures;

 

    advertising and promotion;

 

    compliance with good manufacturing practices requirements;

 

    recalls and field safety corrective actions;

 

    post-market surveillance, including reporting of deaths or serious injuries and malfunctions that, if they were to recur, could lead to death or serious injury;

 

    post-market approval studies; and

 

    product import and export.

 

31


Table of Contents

The regulations to which we are subject are complex and have tended to become more stringent over time. Regulatory changes could result in restrictions on our ability to carry on or expand our operations, difficulties achieving new product clearances, higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales.

Before we can market or sell a new regulated product or make a significant modification to an existing product in the United States, with very limited exception, we must obtain either clearance under Section 510(k) of the FDCA for Class II devices or approval of a premarket approval, or PMA, application from the FDA for a Class III device. In the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a device legally on the market, known as a “predicate” device, with respect to intended use, technology, and safety and effectiveness, in order to clear the proposed device for marketing. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. The PMA pathway requires an applicant to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing, and labeling data. The PMA process is typically required for devices that are deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting, or implantable devices. Products that are approved through a PMA application generally need FDA approval before they can be modified. Similarly, some modifications made to products cleared through a 510(k) may require a new 510(k). Both the 510(k) and PMA processes can be expensive and lengthy and require the payment of significant fees, unless exempt. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to 12 months, but may last longer. The process of obtaining a PMA is much more costly and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process and generally takes from one to three years, or even longer, from the time the application is submitted to the FDA until an approval is obtained. The process of obtaining domestic and international regulatory clearances or approvals to market a medical device can be costly and time-consuming, and we may not be able to obtain these clearances or approvals on a timely basis, if at all.

In the United States, our currently commercialized products have either received premarket clearance under Section 510(k) of the FDCA or are exempt from premarket review. If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for future products or modifications to existing products than we had expected, our product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could cause our sales to decline. In addition, the FDA may determine that future products will require the more costly, lengthy, and uncertain PMA process. Although we do not currently market any devices under PMA, the FDA may demand that we obtain a PMA prior to marketing certain of our future products. In addition, if the FDA disagrees with our determination that a product we currently market is subject to an exemption from premarket review, the FDA may require us to submit a 510(k) or PMA in order to continue marketing the product. Further, even with respect to those future products where a PMA is not required, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain the 510(k) clearances with respect to those products.

The FDA can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a device for many reasons, including:

 

    we may not be able to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction that our products are safe and effective for their intended users;

 

    the data from our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials may be insufficient to support clearance or approval, where required; and

 

    the manufacturing process or facilities we use may not meet applicable requirements.

In addition, the FDA may change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions which may prevent or delay clearance or approval of our products under development or impact our ability to modify our currently approved or cleared products on a timely basis.

Any delay in, or failure to receive or maintain, clearance or approval for our products under development could prevent us from generating revenue from these products or achieving profitability.

In addition, even after we have obtained the proper regulatory clearance or approval to market a product, the FDA has the power to require us to conduct postmarketing studies. These studies can be very expensive and

 

32


Table of Contents

time-consuming to conduct. Failure to comply with those studies in a timely manner could result in the revocation of the 510(k) clearance for a product that is subject to such a 522 Order and the recall or withdrawal of the product, which could prevent us from generating sales from that product in the United States.

In the EEA, our medical devices must comply with the Essential Requirements set forth in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 93/42/EEC), or Essential Requirements. Compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to be able to affix the CE mark to our medical devices, without which they cannot be marketed or sold in the EEA. To demonstrate compliance with the Essential Requirements we must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. Except for low risk medical devices (Class I), where the manufacturer can issue an EC Declaration of Conformity based on a self-assessment of the conformity of its products with the Essential Requirements, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a third party organization designated by the competent authorities of a EEA country to conduct conformity assessments, known as a Notified Body. The Notified Body would typically audit and examine the medical device’s Technical File, the quality system for the manufacture, design and conduct a final inspection of our medical devices before issuing a CE Certificate of Conformity demonstrating compliance with the Essential Requirements or the QSR of the Medical Devices Directive.

Additionally, as part of the conformity assessment process, medical device manufacturers must carry out a clinical evaluation of their medical devices to verify that they comply with the relevant Essential Requirements covering safety and performance. A clinical evaluation includes an assessment of whether a medical device’s performance is in accordance with its intended use and that the known and foreseeable risks linked to the use of the device under normal conditions are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended purpose. The clinical evaluation conducted by the manufacturer must also address any clinical claims, the adequacy of the device labeling and information (particularly claims, contraindications, precautions/ warnings) and the suitability of related Instructions for Use. This assessment must be based on clinical data, which can be obtained from (i) clinical studies conducted on the devices being assessed; (ii) scientific literature from similar devices whose equivalence with the assessed device can be demonstrated; or (iii) both clinical studies and scientific literature. With respect to implantable devices, or devices classified as Class III in the EU, the manufacturer must conduct clinical studies to obtain the required clinical data, unless the relying on existing clinical data from similar devices can be justified. As part of the conformity assessment procedure, depending on the type of devices, the Notified Body will review the manufacturer’s clinical evaluation for the medical device. The conduct of clinical studies to obtain clinical data that might be required as part of the described clinical evaluation process can be expensive and time-consuming.

The FDA and other regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Regulatory enforcement or inquiries, or other increased scrutiny on us, could dissuade some surgeons from using our products and adversely affect our reputation and the perceived safety and effectiveness of our products.

Failure to comply with applicable regulations could jeopardize our ability to sell our products and result in enforcement actions such as:

 

    warning letters;

 

    fines;

 

    injunctions;

 

    civil penalties;

 

    termination of distribution;

 

    recalls or seizures of products;

 

    delays in the introduction of products into the market;

 

33


Table of Contents
    total or partial suspension of production;

 

    facility closures;

 

    refusal of the FDA or our Notified Body or other regulator to grant future clearances or approvals or to issue CE Certificates of Conformity;

 

    withdrawals or suspensions of current clearances or approvals and CE Certificates of Conformity, resulting in prohibitions on sales of our products; and/or

 

    in the most serious cases, criminal penalties.

Adverse action by an applicable regulatory agency, our Notified Body or the FDA could result in inability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner, or at all, decreased sales, higher prices, lower margins, additional unplanned costs or actions, damage to our reputation, and could have material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations, and financial condition.

We and our distributor sales representatives must comply with U.S. federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including anti-kickback and false claims and equivalent foreign rules.

Healthcare providers, specialty distributors, physicians, and third-party payors play a primary role in the distribution, recommendation, ordering, and purchasing of any implant or other medical device for which we have or obtain marketing clearance or approval. Through our arrangements with customers and third-party payors, we are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors, or third-party distributors may engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include, among other infractions or violations, intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or unauthorized activity that violates FDA regulations, manufacturing standards, federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, laws that require the true, complete, and accurate reporting of financial information or data, other commercial or regulatory laws or requirements, and equivalent foreign rules. We have a Compliance program, Code of Conduct, and associated policies and procedures, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by our employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations, and government authorities may conclude that our business practices do not comply with applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations or guidance despite our good faith efforts to comply.

There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse, including anti- kickback and false claims laws. Our relationships and our distributors’ relationships with surgeons, other healthcare professionals, and hospitals are subject to scrutiny under these laws.

Healthcare fraud and abuse laws and related regulations are complex, and even minor irregularities can potentially give rise to claims that a statute or prohibition has been violated. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

 

    the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, items or services for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under federal healthcare programs, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs;

 

   

the federal civil False Claims Act, which prohibits, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment of government funds; knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false claim paid or to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal

 

34


Table of Contents
 

government. A claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal Civil False Claims Act. There are also criminal penalties for making or presenting a false or fictitious or fraudulent claim to the federal government;

 

    the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program including private third-party payors, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items, or services;

 

    the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually with certain exceptions to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments or other “transfers of value” made to physicians and teaching hospitals, and requires applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members and payments or other “transfers of value” to such physician owners; and

 

    analogous state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers; state laws that require device companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state beneficiary inducement laws, and state laws that require device manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

If we or our employees are found to have violated any of the above laws we may be subjected to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and significant fines, monetary damages and damage to our reputation. Additional information about these laws is provided in “Business—Regulation.”

We have entered into consulting agreements and royalty agreements with surgeons, including some who are customers. We also engage in co-marketing arrangements with certain surgeons who use our products. In addition, a small number of our current customer surgeons own less than 1.0% of our stock, which they either purchased in an arm’s length transaction on terms identical to those offered to others, or received from us as fair market value consideration for consulting services performed. While all of these transactions were structured with the intention of complying with all applicable laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, state anti-kickback laws and other applicable laws, to the extent applicable, it is possible that regulatory agencies may view these transactions as prohibited arrangements that must be restructured, or discontinued, or for which we could be subject to significant penalties. We would be materially and adversely affected if regulatory agencies interpret our financial relationships with surgeons who order our products to be in violation of applicable laws and we were unable to comply with such laws, which could subject us to, among other things, monetary penalties for non-compliance, the cost of which could be substantial.

In certain cases, federal and state authorities pursue actions for false claims on the basis that manufacturers and distributors are promoting unapproved, or “off-label” uses of their products. Pursuant to FDA regulations, we can only market our products for cleared or approved uses. Although surgeons are permitted to use medical devices for indications other than those cleared or approved by the FDA, we are prohibited from promoting

 

35


Table of Contents

products for “off-label” uses. We market our products and provide promotional materials and training programs to surgeons regarding the use of our products. If it is determined that our marketing, promotional materials or training programs constitute promotion of unapproved uses, we could be subject to significant fines in addition to regulatory enforcement actions, including the issuance of a warning letter, injunction, seizure, criminal penalty, and damage to our reputation.

Federal and state authorities also pursue actions for false claims based upon improper billing and coding advice or recommendations, as well as decisions related to the medical necessity of procedures, including the site-of-service where procedures are performed. Actions under the federal False Claims Act may also be brought by whistleblowers under its qui tam provisions. For example, a patient of one surgeon using our product brought an action alleging that the surgeon had violated the False Claims Act in connection with his claim for reimbursement for the patient’s procedure, and that we had suggested such false statements and claims to that surgeon and other surgeons across the country. We have denied all liability and the case is currently being litigated. The judge presiding over the case has limited the action the patient may pursue to claims submitted by only that surgeon for reimbursement from the Vermont Medicaid program.

To enforce compliance with the federal laws, the U.S. Department of Justice, has increased its scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Dealing with investigations can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from the business. Additionally, if a healthcare company settles an investigation with the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agencies, it may need to agree to additional onerous compliance and reporting requirements as part of a consent decree or corporate integrity agreement. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our financial condition and divert resources and the attention of our management from operating our business.

The scope and enforcement of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with different compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that we may run afoul of one or more of the requirements or that federal or state regulatory authorities might challenge our current or future activities under these laws. Additionally, we cannot predict the impact of any changes in these laws, whether or not retroactive.

We are subject to risks associated with our non-U.S. operations.

The FCPA prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Other anti-corruption or anti-bribery laws, such as the United Kingdom Anti-Bribery Act, or UKBA, prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to anyone for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also imposes accounting standards and requirements on publicly traded U.S. corporations and their foreign affiliates, which are intended to prevent the diversion of corporate funds to the payment of bribes and other improper payments, and to prevent the establishment of slush funds from which such improper payments can be made. Because of the predominance of government-sponsored healthcare systems around the world, many of our customer relationships outside of the United States are with governmental entities and are therefore subject to such anti- bribery laws. Our internal control policies and procedures may not always protect us from reckless or criminal acts committed by our employees or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our operations, involve significant management distraction and result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. We also could suffer severe penalties, including criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other remedial measures, including further changes or enhancements to our procedures, policies and controls, as well as potential personnel changes and disciplinary actions.

 

36


Table of Contents

Furthermore, we are subject to anti-boycott laws, anti-money laundering laws, and the export controls and economic embargo rules and regulations of the United States, including, but not limited to, the Export Administration Regulations and trade sanctions against embargoed countries, which are administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the Department of the Treasury, as well as the laws and regulations administered by the Department of Commerce. These regulations limit our ability to market, sell, distribute or otherwise transfer our products or technology to prohibited countries or persons. A determination that we have failed to comply, whether knowingly or inadvertently, may result in substantial penalties, including fines and enforcement actions and civil and/or criminal sanctions, the disgorgement of profits and the imposition of a court-appointed monitor, as well as the denial of export privileges, and may have an adverse effect on our reputation.

Even if our products are approved by regulatory authorities or CE marked, if we, our contractors, or our suppliers fail to comply with ongoing FDA or other foreign regulatory requirements, or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, these products could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market.

Any product for which we obtain regulatory clearance or approval, or a CE Certificate of Conformity, and the manufacturing processes, reporting requirements, post-approval clinical data, and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continued regulatory review, oversight and periodic inspections by the FDA, our Notified Body and other domestic and foreign regulatory bodies. In particular, we and our suppliers are required to comply with FDA’s Quality System Regulations, or QSR, and International Standards Organization, regulations for the manufacture of our products and other regulations which cover the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, storage, and shipping of any product for which we obtain regulatory clearance or approval, or a CE Certificate of Conformity.

The failure by us or one of our suppliers to comply with applicable statutes and regulations, or the failure to timely and adequately respond to any adverse inspectional observations or product safety issues, could result in, among other things, any of the following enforcement actions:

 

    untitled letters, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent, and civil penalties;

 

    unanticipated expenditures to address or defend such actions;

 

    customer notifications for repair, replacement, refunds;

 

    recall, detention, or seizure of our products;

 

    operating restrictions or partial suspension or total shutdown of production;

 

    refusing or delaying our requests for 510(k) clearance or premarket approval and conformity assessments of new products or modified products;

 

    limitations on the intended uses for which the product may be marketed;

 

    operating restrictions;

 

    withdrawing 510(k) clearances or PMA approvals that have already been granted;

 

    suspension or withdrawal of CE Certificates of Conformity;

 

    refusal to grant export approval for our products; or

 

    criminal prosecution.

In addition, we may be required to conduct costly post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or effectiveness of our products, and we must comply with medical device reporting requirements, including the reporting of adverse events and malfunctions related to our products. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, including unanticipated adverse events or adverse events of unanticipated severity or

 

37


Table of Contents

frequency, manufacturing problems, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements such as QSR, may result in changes to labeling, restrictions on such products or manufacturing processes, withdrawal of the products from the market, voluntary or mandatory recalls, a requirement to repair, replace, or refund the cost of any medical device we manufacture or distribute, fines, suspension, variation, or withdrawal of regulatory approvals or CE Certificates of Conformity, product seizures, injunctions, or the imposition of civil, administrative, or criminal penalties which would adversely affect our business, operating results, and prospects.

If the FDA determines that our promotional materials, labeling, training or other marketing or educational activities constitute promotion of an unapproved use, it could request that we cease or modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory enforcement actions. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our training or other promotional materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false or fraudulent claims for payment of government funds.

If any of these actions were to occur it would harm our reputation and cause our product sales and profitability to suffer and may prevent us from generating revenue. Furthermore, our key component suppliers may not currently be or may not continue to be in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, which could result in our failure to produce our products on a timely basis and in the required quantities, if at all.

The FDA inspected our facilities in May 2014. As a result, we received a Notice of Inspectional Observations, or Form 483, with three observations that have since been addressed with a corrective and preventative action, or CAPA, plan. We responded to the Agency in writing and the matter was closed as of October 2014 through the issuance of an Establishment Inspection Report. To date, the FDA has not taken any further action with respect to the May 2014 inspection or its findings. The FDA inspected our facilities again in December 2016 and no findings were noted.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, manufacturers, and third-party distributors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, relating to regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, manufacturers, and third-party distributors may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates FDA regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to the FDA, manufacturing standards, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, and laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of individually identifiable information, including, without limitation, information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have a Compliance program, Code of Conduct and associated policies and procedures, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, disgorgement of profits, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

 

38


Table of Contents

We may be subject to enforcement action, including fines, penalties or injunctions, if we are determined to be engaging in the off-label promotion of our products.

Our promotional materials and training methods must comply with FDA and other applicable laws and regulations, including the prohibition of the promotion of off-label use. Physicians may use our products off- label, as the FDA does not restrict or regulate a physician’s choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. In the United States, the full indication for the iFuse Implant System is: “The iFuse Implant System is intended for sacroiliac joint fusion for conditions including sacroiliac joint dysfunction that is a direct result of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis. This includes conditions whose symptoms began during pregnancy or in the peripartum period and have persisted postpartum for more than six months. Clinical studies have demonstrated that treatment with the iFuse Implant System improved pain, patient function, and quality of life at 12-months post-implantation.” We believe that the specific surgical procedures for which our products are marketed fall within the scope of the surgical applications that have been cleared by the FDA. However, if the FDA determines that our promotional materials or training constitutes promotion of an off-label use, it could request that we modify our training or promotional materials, require us to stop promoting our products for those specific procedures until we obtain FDA clearance or approval for them, or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fines, and criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our promotional or training materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false or fraudulent claims for payment of government fund. In that event, our reputation could be damaged and adoption of the products would be impaired. Although our policy is to refrain from statements that could be considered off-label promotion of our products, the FDA or another regulatory agency could disagree and conclude that we have engaged in off-label promotion. In addition, the off-label use of our products may increase the risk of injury to patients, and, in turn, the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims are expensive to defend and could divert our management’s attention, result in substantial damage awards against us and harm our reputation.

A recall of our products, either voluntarily or at the direction of the FDA or another governmental authority, including foreign governmental authorities, or the discovery of serious safety issues or malfunctions with our products, can result in voluntary corrective actions or agency enforcement actions, which could have a significant adverse impact on us.

The FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found.

In the case of the FDA, the authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is an unreasonable risk of substantial public harm. In addition, foreign governmental bodies have the authority to require the recall of our products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our third-party distributors could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects, or other deficiencies and issues. Recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations, and financial condition, which could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. We may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our future sales and our ability to generate profits.

The FDA requires that certain classifications of recalls be reported to FDA within 10 working days after the recall is initiated. Companies are required to maintain certain records of recalls, even if they are not reportable to the FDA. We may initiate voluntary recalls involving our products in the future that we determine do not require notification of the FDA. If the FDA disagrees with our determinations, they could require us to report those

 

39


Table of Contents

actions as recalls. A future recall announcement could harm our reputation with customers and negatively affect our sales. In addition, the FDA could take enforcement action for failing to report the recalls when they were conducted.

Further, under the FDA’s medical device reporting, regulations, we are required to report to the FDA any information that our product may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which our product malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. If we fail to report these events to the FDA within the required timeframes, or at all, FDA could take enforcement action against us. Any such adverse event involving our products or repeated product malfunctions may result in a voluntary or involuntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection or enforcement action. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending ourselves in a lawsuit could divert managerial and financial resources, impair our ability to manufacture our products in a cost-effective and timely manner, and have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations, and financial condition.

In the EEA, we must comply with the EU Medical Device Vigilance System. Under this system, incidents must be reported to the relevant authorities of the Member States of the EEA, and manufacturers are required to take Field Safety Corrective Actions, or FSCAs, to reduce a risk of death or serious deterioration in the state of health associated with the use of a medical device that is already placed on the market. An incident is defined as any malfunction or deterioration in the characteristics and/or performance of a device, as well as any inadequacy in the labeling or the instructions for use which, directly or indirectly, might lead to or might have led to the death of a patient or user or of other persons or to a serious deterioration in their state of health. An FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of the device FSCAs must be communicated by the manufacturer or its legal representative to its customers and/or to the end users of the device through Field Safety Notices.

Any adverse event involving our products, whether in the United States or abroad, could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection, mandatory recall or other enforcement action. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending ourselves in a lawsuit, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business, and may harm our reputation and financial results.

Modifications to our products may require new 510(k) clearances or premarket approvals and new conformity assessment by our Notified Body, or may require us to cease marketing or recall the modified products until clearances, approvals, or CE Certificates of Conformity are obtained.

Any modification to a 510(k)-cleared device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design, or manufacture, requires a new 510(k) clearance or, possibly, a PMA. The FDA requires every manufacturer make and document this determination in the first instance. A manufacturer may determine that a modification could not significantly affect safety or effectiveness and does not represent a major change in its intended use, so that no new 510(k) clearance is necessary. FDA may review any manufacturer’s decision and may not agree with our decisions regarding whether new clearances or approvals are necessary. The FDA may also on its own initiative determine that a new clearance or approval is required. We have made modifications to our products in the past and may make additional modifications in the future that we believe do not or will not require additional clearances or approvals. If the FDA disagrees and requires new clearances or approvals for the modifications, we may be required to recall and to stop marketing our products as modified until clearance or approvals can be obtained, which could require us to redesign our products and harm our operating results. In these circumstances, we may be subject to significant enforcement actions.

We have modified some of our 510(k) cleared products, and have determined based on our review of the applicable FDA guidance that in certain instances new 510(k) clearances or PMAs are not required. If the FDA

 

40


Table of Contents

disagrees with our determination and requires us to submit new 510(k) clearances or PMAs for modifications to our previously cleared products for which we have concluded that new clearances or approvals are unnecessary, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the modified product until we obtain clearance or approval, and we may be subject to significant enforcement action, regulatory fines, or penalties.

If a manufacturer determines that a modification to an FDA-cleared device could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or would constitute a major change in its intended use, then the manufacturer must file for a new 510(k) clearance or possibly a premarket approval application. Where we determine that modifications to our products require a new 510(k) clearance or premarket approval application, we may not be able to obtain those additional clearances or approvals for the modifications or additional indications in a timely manner, or at all. FDA’s ongoing review of the 510(k) program may make it more difficult for us to make modifications to our previously cleared products, either by imposing more strict requirements on when a new 510(k) for a modification to a previously cleared product must be submitted, or applying more onerous review criteria to such submissions.

In the EEA, we must inform the Notified Body that carried out the conformity assessment of the medical devices we market or sell in the EEA of any planned substantial changes to our quality system or changes to our devices which could affect compliance with the essential requirements or the devices’ intended use. The Notified Body will then assess the changes and verify whether they affect the products’ conformity. There can be no assurances that the assessment will be favorable and that the Notified Body will attest our compliance with the essential requirements, which will prevent us from selling our products in the EEA.

Obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals and CE Certificates of Conformity can be a time consuming process, and delays in obtaining required future regulatory clearances or approvals, and CE Certificates of Conformity would adversely affect our ability to introduce new or enhanced products in a timely manner, which in turn would harm our future growth.

There is no guarantee that the FDA will grant 510(k) clearance or premarket approval of our future products or that our Notified Body will issue the required CE Certificate of Conformity, and failure to obtain necessary clearances or approvals for our future products would adversely affect our ability to grow our business.

We are in the process of developing our regulatory strategies for obtaining clearance or approval for future products. Some of them may require 510(k) clearance by the FDA or a new CE Certificate of Conformity. Other future products may require premarket approval. In addition some of our new products may require clinical trials to support regulatory approval and we may not successfully complete these clinical trials. The FDA may not approve or clear these products or our Notified Body may not issue CE Certificate of Conformity for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization. Indeed, the FDA may refuse our requests for 510(k) clearance or premarket approval of new products, new intended uses, or modifications to existing products. Failure to receive clearance or approval for our new products would have an adverse effect on our ability to expand our business.

We may fail to obtain or maintain foreign regulatory approvals to market our products in other countries.

We currently market our products internationally and intend to expand our international marketing. International jurisdictions require separate regulatory approvals and compliance with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. For example, we intend to continue to seek domestic and international regulatory clearance to market our primary products Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East and other key markets. The approval procedures vary among countries and may involve requirements for substantial additional testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from country to country and from that required to obtain FDA clearance or approval or to obtain CE Certificates of Conformity.

 

41


Table of Contents

Clearance or approval by the FDA or obtaining a CE Certificate of Conformity does not ensure approval or certification by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval or certification by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval or certification by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA, and the CE marking of our products in the EEA. The foreign regulatory approval or certification process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA clearance or approval, or a CE Certificate of Conformity for a medical device in the EEA in addition to other risks. In addition, the time required to obtain foreign approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA clearance or approval, or a CE Certificate of Conformity in the EEA and we may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals or certifications and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market. If we fail to receive necessary approvals or certifications to commercialize our products in foreign jurisdictions on a timely basis, or at all, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Clinical trials necessary to support a 510(k) or PMA application or a conformity assessment procedure will be expensive and may require the enrollment of large numbers of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Delays or failures in our clinical trials will prevent us from commercializing any modified or new products and will adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.

Initiating and completing clinical trials necessary to support a PMA application for our future products and additional safety and effectiveness data beyond that typically required for a 510(k) clearance for iFuse, as well as other possible future product candidates, and to support a conformity assessment procedure would be time consuming and expensive and the outcome uncertain. Moreover, the results of early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, and any product we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials.

Conducting successful clinical studies may require the enrollment of large numbers of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient participation and follow-up depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the attractiveness of, or the discomforts and risks associated with, the treatments received by enrolled subjects, the availability of appropriate clinical trial investigators, support staff, and proximity of patients to clinical sites and able to comply with the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation in the clinical trial and patient compliance. Development of sufficient and appropriate clinical protocols to demonstrate safety and effectiveness are required and we may not adequately develop such protocols to support clearance and approval. Further, the FDA or our Notified Body may require us to submit data on a greater number of patients than we originally anticipated and/or for a longer follow-up period or change the data collection requirements or data analysis applicable to our clinical trials. Delays in patient enrollment or failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial may cause an increase in costs and delays in the approval and attempted commercialization of our products or result in the failure of the clinical trial. In addition, despite considerable time and expense invested in our clinical trials, the FDA or our Notified Body may not consider our data adequate to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Such increased costs and delays or failures could adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.

Our facility and our clinical investigational sites operate under procedures that govern the conduct and management of FDA-regulated clinical studies under 21 CFR Parts 50 and 812, and Good Clinical Practices. The FDA may conduct Bioresearch Monitoring inspections of us and/or our clinical sites to assess compliance with 21 CFR Parts 50 and 812, our procedures, and the clinical protocol. If the FDA were to find that we or our clinical investigators are not operating in compliance with applicable regulations, we could be subject to the above FDA enforcement action, as well as refusal to accept all or part of our data in support of our 510(k) or PMA, or we may need to conduct additional studies.

 

42


Table of Contents

The results of our clinical trials may not support our product candidate claims or may result in the discovery of adverse side effects.

Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our product candidate claims or that the FDA, foreign authorities, or our Notified Body will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Success in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and pre-clinical studies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for the proposed indicated uses, which could cause us to abandon a product candidate and may delay development of others. Any delay or termination of our clinical trials will delay the filing of our product submissions and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue. It is also possible that patients enrolled in clinical trials will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of the product candidate’s profile.

U.S. legislative or FDA or foreign regulatory reforms may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory clearances or approvals, or CE Certificates of Conformity for our product candidates and to manufacture, market, and distribute our products after approval is obtained.

From time to time, Congress introduces legislation that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory approval, manufacture, and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of future products. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted or FDA regulations, guidance, or interpretations changed, and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

For example, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. For example, in 2011, the FDA initiated a review of the premarket clearance process in response to internal and external concerns regarding the 510(k) program, announcing 25 action items designed to make the process more rigorous and transparent. In addition, as part of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, Congress enacted several reforms entitled the Medical Device Regulatory Improvements and additional miscellaneous provisions that will further affect medical device regulation both pre- and post-approval. In December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was enacted, with a number of provisions impacting medical device regulation. The FDA has implemented, and continues to implement, these reforms, which could impose additional regulatory requirements upon us and delay our ability to obtain new 510(k) clearances, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain our current clearances. Any change in the laws or regulations that govern the clearance and approval processes relating to our current and future products could make it more difficult and costly to obtain clearance or approval for new products, or to produce, market, and distribute existing products. Significant delays in receiving clearance or approval, or the failure to receive clearance or approval for our new products would have an adverse effect on our ability to expand our business.

Another example can be found in the EEA. On September 26, 2012, the European Commission adopted a package of legislative proposals designed to replace the existing regulatory framework for medical devices in the EEA. These proposals are intended to strengthen the medical devices rules in the EEA. On April 5, 2017, the final text of the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR) were adopted by the Parliament and the Council. These regulations, which will substantially impact medical devices manufacturers, will be applicable from May 2020 for the MDR and May 2022 for the IVDR. Examples of the changes which will be introduced by these regulations include the following:

 

    Additional scrutiny during the conformity assessment procedure for high risk medical devices;

 

    Strengthening of the clinical data requirements related to medical devices;

 

43


Table of Contents
    Strengthening of the designation and monitoring processes governing notified bodies;

 

    The obligation for manufacturers and authorized representative to have a person responsible for regulatory compliance continuously at their disposal;

 

    Authorized representatives would be held legally responsible and liable for defective products placed on the EU market;

 

    Increased traceability of medical devices following the introduction of a Unique Device Identification (UDI) system;

 

    New rules governing the reprocessing of medical devices; and

 

    Increased transparency with the establishment of EUDAMED III as information from several databases concerning economic operators, CE Certificates of Conformity, conformity assessment, clinical investigations, the UDI system, adverse event reporting and market surveillance would be available to the public.

The sales of our products depend in part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors such as government health administration authorities, private health insurers, health maintenance organizations and other healthcare-related organizations. Recent political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the healthcare industry to fundamental changes that can impact coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. For example, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2011, among other things, reduced and/or limited Medicare reimbursement to certain providers. Legislative changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act remain possible and appear likely in the 115th United States Congress and under the Trump Administration. We expect that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as it may be amended in the future, and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to maintain or increase sales of our existing products. Other federal laws established sequestration (i.e., automatic spending reductions), which further reduces Medicare’s payments to providers by two percent through 2024. These reductions reduce reimbursement for our products, which could potentially negatively impact our revenue, and may reduce providers’ revenues or profits, which could affect their ability to purchase new technologies. Both the federal and state governments in the United States and foreign governments continue to propose and pass new legislation and regulations designed to contain or reduce the cost of healthcare. Such legislation and regulations may result in decreased reimbursement for medical devices, which may further exacerbate industry-wide pressure to reduce the prices charged for medical devices. This could harm our ability to market our products and generate sales.

Our financial performance may be adversely affected by medical device tax provisions in the healthcare reform laws.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2011, imposes, among other things, an annual excise tax on any entity that manufactures or imports medical devices offered for sale in the United States. Under these provisions, the Congressional Research Service predicts that the total cost to the medical device industry may be up to $20.0 billion over the next decade. A two-year moratorium currently applies to this tax through December 2017. After that time, the tax may be repealed or modified, or the moratorium may be lifted, in which case sales of our iFuse would be subject to this excise tax.

We may incur product liability losses, and insurance coverage may be inadequate or unavailable to cover these losses.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims that are inherent in the testing, design, manufacture and sale of medical devices for sacroiliac joint surgery procedures. Sacroiliac joint surgery involves

 

44


Table of Contents

significant risk of serious complications, including bleeding, nerve injury, paralysis and even death. In addition, if longer-term patient results and experience indicates that our products or any component of a product cause tissue damage, motor impairment or other adverse effects, we could be subject to significant liability. Surgeons may misuse or ineffectively use our products, which may result in unsatisfactory patient outcomes or patient injury. We could become the subject of product liability lawsuits alleging that component failures, manufacturing flaws, design defects or inadequate disclosure of product-related risks or product-related information resulted in an unsafe condition or injury to patients. Product liability lawsuits and claims, safety alerts, or product recalls, regardless of their ultimate outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our business and reputation, our ability to attract and retain customers and our results of operations or financial condition. We are aware of two patient deaths taking place following an iFuse Procedure and a medical device report was filed for each case with the FDA. The first patient death occurred in 2012 when a patient suffered a ruptured inferior vena cava approximately one week after a procedure. The timing and the location of the rupture did not suggest that the injury resulted from the procedure. We learned of a second death that occurred in 2013 approximately six hours after the procedure. According to a report on the case, an autopsy revealed a perforated iliac artery close to the implant, possibly caused by a drill wire guide, but the exact source of the bleeding could not be identified. Furthermore, the patient’s blood was found to contain toxic levels of an unprescribed pain killer (tramadol), which was found to be co-responsible for the death. To date, neither of these deaths has resulted in a claim or investigation that our iFuse Implant malfunctioned or had a defect.

Although we maintain third-party product liability insurance coverage, it is possible that claims against us may exceed the coverage limits of our insurance policies or cause us to record a self-insured loss. Even if any product liability loss is covered by an insurance policy, these policies typically have substantial retentions or deductibles that we are responsible for. Product liability claims in excess of applicable insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

In addition, any product liability claim brought against us, with or without merit, could result in an increase of our product liability insurance rates. Insurance coverage varies in cost and can be difficult to obtain, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain insurance coverage in the future on terms acceptable to us or at all.

We are subject to environmental laws and regulations that can impose significant costs and expose us to potential financial liabilities.

The manufacture of certain of our products, including our implants and products, and the handling of materials used in the product testing process, including in our cadaveric laboratory, involve the use of biological, hazardous and/or radioactive materials and wastes. Our business and facilities and those of our suppliers are subject to foreign, federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of human health and the environment, including those governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling, and disposal of, and exposure to, such materials and wastes. In addition, under some environmental laws and regulations, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our past or present facilities and at third-party waste disposal sites even if such contamination was not caused by us. A failure to comply with current or future environmental laws and regulations could result in severe fines or penalties. Any such expenses or liability could have a significant negative impact on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property and Potential Litigation

Our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology is uncertain.

We rely primarily on patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws, as well as confidentiality and non- disclosure agreements and other methods, to protect our proprietary technologies and know-how. As of March 31, 2017, we owned 23 issued U.S. patents and had 16 pending U.S. patent applications, and we owned six issued foreign patents and had 12 pending foreign patent applications. As of March 31, 2017, we also had

 

45


Table of Contents

two pending U.S. trademark applications and 16 pending foreign trademark applications, as well as 96 trademark registrations, including 17 U.S. trademark registrations and 79 foreign trademark registrations.

We have applied for patent protection relating to certain existing and proposed products and processes. While we generally apply for patents in those countries where we intend to make, have made, use, or sell patented products, we may not accurately predict all of the countries where patent protection will ultimately be desirable. If we fail to timely file a patent application in any such country, we may be precluded from doing so at a later date. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that any of our patent applications will be approved. The rights granted to us under our patents, including prospective rights sought in our pending patent applications, may not be meaningful or provide us with any commercial advantage. In addition, those rights could be opposed, contested, or circumvented by our competitors or be declared invalid or unenforceable in judicial or administrative proceedings. The failure of our patents to adequately protect our technology might make it easier for our competitors to offer the same or similar products or technologies. Competitors may be able to design around our patents or develop products that provide outcomes which are comparable to ours without infringing on our intellectual property rights. Due to differences between foreign and U.S. patent laws, our patented intellectual property rights may not receive the same degree of protection in foreign countries as they would in the United States. Even if patents are granted outside the United States, effective enforcement in those countries may not be available. Since most of our issued patents are for the United States only, we lack a corresponding scope of patent protection in other countries. In countries where we do not have significant patent protection, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing products in such countries that are the same as or similar to our products.

We rely on our trademarks, trade names and brand names to distinguish our products from the products of our competitors, and have registered or applied to register many of these trademarks. We cannot assure you that our trademark applications will be approved. Third parties may also oppose our trademark applications, or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products, which could result in loss of brand recognition, and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands. Further, we cannot assure you that competitors will not infringe upon our trademarks, or that we will have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks.

We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and technology, which are not protected by patents, to maintain our competitive position. We try to protect this information by entering into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with parties that develop intellectual property for us and/or have access to it, such as our officers, employees, consultants and advisors. However, in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of such agreements, we may not be provided with meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know- how and inventions. If any of our trade secrets, know-how or other technologies not protected by a patent were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

In the future, we may enter into licensing agreements to maintain our competitive position. If we enter into in-bound intellectual property license agreements, we may not be able to fully protect the licensed intellectual property rights or maintain those licenses. Future licensors could retain the right to prosecute and defend the intellectual property rights licensed to us, in which case we would depend on the ability of our licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce intellectual property protection for the licensed intellectual property. These licensors may determine not to pursue litigation against other companies or may pursue such litigation less aggressively than we would. Further, entering into such license agreements could impose various diligence, commercialization, royalty, or other obligations on us. Future licensors may allege that we have breached our license agreement with them, and accordingly seek damages or to terminate our license, which could adversely affect our competitive business position and harm our business prospects.

 

46


Table of Contents

If a competitor infringes upon one of our patents, trademarks, or other intellectual property rights, enforcing those patents, trademarks and other rights may be difficult and time consuming. Even if successful, litigation to defend our patents and trademarks against challenges or to enforce our intellectual property rights could be expensive and time consuming and could divert management’s attention from managing our business. Moreover, we may not have sufficient resources to defend our patents or trademarks against challenges or to enforce our intellectual property rights. In addition, if third parties infringe any intellectual property that is not material to the products that we make, have made, use or sell, it may be impractical for us to enforce this intellectual property against those third parties.

We may be subject to damages resulting from claims that we, our employees, or our third-party distributors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of our competitors or are in breach of non-competition or non-solicitation agreements with our competitors.

Many of our employees were previously employed at other medical device companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, in some cases until recently. Some of our third-party distributors sell, or in the past have sold, products of our competitors. We may be subject to claims that we, our employees, or our third-party distributors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of these former employers or competitors. In addition, we have been and may in the future be subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs, divert the attention of management from our core business and harm our reputation. If our defense to those claims fails, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. There can be no assurance that this type of litigation will not continue, and any future litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire additional direct sales representatives. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize product candidates, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The medical device industry is characterized by patent litigation and we could become subject to litigation that could be costly, result in the diversion of management’s time and efforts, require us to pay damages, and/or prevent us from developing or marketing our existing or future products.

Our commercial success will depend in part on not infringing the patents or violating the other proprietary rights of third parties. Significant litigation regarding patent rights exists in our industry. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make and sell our products. We have conducted a limited review of patents issued to third parties. The large number of patents, the rapid rate of new patent issuances, the complexities of the technology involved, and the uncertainty of litigation increase the risk of business assets and management’s attention being diverted to patent litigation. Any litigation or claim against us, even those without merit, may cause us to incur substantial costs, and could place a significant strain on our financial resources, divert the attention of management from our core business, and harm our reputation. Further, as the number of participants in the medical device industry grows, the possibility of intellectual property infringement claims against us increases. If we are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, we could be required to pay substantial damages, including treble, or triple, damages if an infringement is found to be willful, and/or royalties and could be prevented from selling our products unless we obtain a license or are able to redesign our products to avoid infringement. Any such license may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all, and there can be no assurance that we would be able to redesign our products in a way that would not infringe the intellectual property rights of others. If we fail to obtain any required licenses or make any necessary changes to our products or technologies, we may have to withdraw existing products from the market or may be unable to commercialize one or more of our products, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. If passed into law, patent reform legislation currently pending in the U.S. Congress could significantly change the risks associated with bringing

 

47


Table of Contents

or defending a patent infringement lawsuit. For example, fee shifting legislation could require a non-prevailing party to pay the attorney fees of the prevailing party in some circumstances.

In addition, we generally indemnify our customers and third-party distributors with respect to infringement by our products of the proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may assert infringement claims against our customers or third-party distributors. These claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of our customers or third-party distributors, regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of our customers or third-party distributors or may be required to obtain licenses to intellectual property owned by such third parties. If we cannot obtain all necessary licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our customers and third-party distributors may be forced to stop using or selling our products.

Risks Related to this Offering and Ownership of Our Common Stock

The price of our common stock may be volatile and the value of your investment could decline.

Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our common stock, and medical device stocks have historically experienced volatility. The trading price of our common stock following this offering may fluctuate substantially. Following the closing of this offering, the market price of our common stock may be higher or lower than the price you pay in the offering, depending on many factors, some of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance. These fluctuations could cause you to lose all or part of your investment in our common stock. Factors that could cause fluctuations in the trading price of our common stock include the following:

 

    our ability to drive increased sales of our product;

 

    our ability to establish and maintain an effective and dedicated sales force;

 

    pricing pressure applicable to our products, including adverse third-party coverage and reimbursement outcomes;

 

    the ability of our suppliers to timely provide us with an adequate supply of materials and components;

 

    results of our clinical trials and that of our competitors’ products;

 

    regulatory actions with respect to our products or our competitor’s products;

 

    announcements of new offerings, products, services or technologies, commercial relationships, acquisitions, or other events by us or our competitors;

 

    price and volume fluctuations in the overall stock market from time to time;

 

    significant volatility in the market price and trading volume of healthcare companies, in general, and of companies in the medical device industry in particular;

 

    fluctuations in the trading volume of our shares or the size of our public float;

 

    negative publicity;

 

    actual or anticipated changes or fluctuations in our results of operations;

 

    whether our results of operations meet the expectations of securities analysts or investors or those expectations change;

 

    litigation involving us, our industry, or both;

 

    regulatory developments in the United States, foreign countries, or both;

 

    general economic conditions and trends;

 

    major catastrophic events;

 

48


Table of Contents
    lock-up releases and sales of large blocks of our common stock;

 

    additions or departures of key employees or scientific personnel;

 

    factors that may affect the sale of our products, including seasonality and budgets of our customers;

 

    the costs of maintaining adequate insurance coverage, including product liability insurance; or

 

    an adverse impact on the company from any of the other risks cited in this prospectus.

In addition, if the market for healthcare stocks or the stock market, in general, experience a loss of investor confidence, the trading price of our common stock could decline for reasons unrelated to our business, results of operations, or financial condition. The trading price of our common stock might also decline in reaction to events that affect other companies in our industry even if these events do not directly affect us. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought against that company. If our stock price is volatile, we may become the target of securities litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources from our business. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public markets, including when the “lock-up” or “market standoff” period ends, or the perception that sales might occur, could reduce the price of our common stock and may dilute your voting power and your ownership interest in us.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market after this offering, or the perception that these sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock, and may make it more difficult for you to sell your common stock at a time and price that you deem appropriate. Based on the total number of outstanding shares of our common stock as of March 31, 2017, upon the closing of this offering, we will have                  shares of common stock outstanding. All of the shares of common stock sold in this offering will be freely tradable without restrictions or further registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, except for any shares held by our “affiliates” as defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act.

Subject to certain exceptions, we, our directors and officers and the holders of substantially all of our capital stock, warrants and stock options have agreed not to offer, sell or agree to sell, directly or indirectly, any shares of common stock without the permission of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated for a period of 180 days from the date of this prospectus. When the lock-up period expires, our security holders will be able to sell shares in the public market subject to any restrictions under the securities laws. In addition, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch may, in their discretion, release all or some portion of the shares subject to lock-up agreements prior to the expiration of the lock-up period. See the section titled “Shares Eligible for Future Sale” for more information. Sales of a substantial number of such shares upon expiration, or the perception that such sales may occur, or early release of the lock-up, could cause our share price to fall, or make it more difficult for you to sell your common stock at a time and price that you deem appropriate.

Based on shares outstanding as of March 31, 2017, the holders of up to                  shares, or approximately     %, of our common stock after this offering, will have rights, subject to some conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering the sale of their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. We also intend to register the offer and sale of all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans.

We may issue our shares of common stock or securities convertible into our common stock from time to time in connection with a financing, acquisition, investments or otherwise. Any such issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

 

49


Table of Contents

Insiders will continue to have substantial control over us after this offering, which could limit your ability to influence the outcome of key transactions, including a change of control.

Our directors, executive officers, and each of our stockholders that own greater than 5% of our outstanding common stock, in the aggregate, will beneficially own approximately     % of the outstanding shares of our common stock after this offering, based on the number of shares outstanding as of March 31, 2017. As a result, these stockholders will be able to influence or control matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers, acquisitions or other extraordinary transactions. They may also have interests that differ from yours and may vote in a manner that is adverse to your interests. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of deterring, delaying, or preventing a change of control of our company, could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of our company and might ultimately affect the market price of our common stock.

There is no existing market for our common stock, and we cannot assure you that a market will develop for our common stock or what the market price of our common stock will be.

Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our common stock. We cannot predict the extent to which investor interest in our company will lead to the development of an active trading market on the Nasdaq Global Market or otherwise or how liquid that market might become. If an active trading market does not develop, you may have difficulty selling any shares of our common stock that you purchase, and the value of such shares might be materially impaired.

In addition, we cannot predict the prices at which our common stock will trade. The initial public offering price for our common stock will be determined by negotiations between us and the representatives of the underwriters and may not be indicative of prices that will prevail in the open market following this offering. Consequently, you may not be able to sell shares of our common stock at prices equal to or greater than the price you paid in this offering.

We have broad discretion in the use of net proceeds that we receive in this offering, and if we do not use those proceeds effectively, your investment could be harmed.

The principal purposes of this offering are to create a public market for our common stock, obtain additional working capital and facilitate our future access to the public equity markets. We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering for general corporate purposes, including working capital, sales and marketing activities, research initiatives including enhancement of our solution, investment in technology and development and capital expenditures. We also may use a portion of the net proceeds from this offering to acquire or invest in technologies, solutions or businesses that complement our business, although we have no present commitments, and we have not allocated specific amounts of net proceeds, to complete any such transactions or plans. Accordingly, our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds to us from this offering. Investors in this offering will need to rely upon the judgment of our management regarding the application of the proceeds. If we do not use the net proceeds that we receive in this offering effectively, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be harmed.

We may be unable to utilize our federal net operating loss carryforwards to reduce our income taxes.

As of December 31, 2016, we had net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards of approximately $105.0 million and $83.7 million available to reduce future taxable income, if any, for U.S. federal income tax and state income tax purposes, respectively. If not utilized, our federal and state NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2029 and 2017, respectively. These NOL carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. In addition, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which generally occurs if the percentage of the corporation’s stock owned by 5% stockholders increases

 

50


Table of Contents

by more than 50% over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. We have determined that we have experienced Section 382 ownership changes in the past and $1.4 million of our NOL and tax credit carryforwards are subject to limitation. In addition, we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, including this offering, some of which may be outside of our control. If an ownership change occurs and our ability to use our historical NOL and tax credit carryforwards is materially limited, it would harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, divert our management’s attention, and affect our ability to attract and retain qualified board members.

As a public company, we will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and will be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming, or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. Among other things, the Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly, and current reports with respect to our business and results of operations and maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could harm our business and results of operations. Although we have already hired additional employees to comply with these requirements, we may need to hire even more employees in the future, which will increase our costs and expenses.

We also expect that being a public company and these new rules and regulations will make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee and compensation committee, and qualified executive officers.

Failure to establish and maintain an effective system of internal controls could result in material misstatements of our financial statements or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations or fail to prevent fraud in which case, our stockholders could lose confidence in our financial reporting, which would harm our business and could negatively impact the price of our stock.

After the closing of this offering, we will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations of Nasdaq Global Market. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. Commencing with our year ending December 31, 2018, we must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for that year, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404. This will require that we incur substantial additional professional fees and internal costs to expand our accounting and finance functions and that we expend significant management efforts. Prior to this offering, we have never been required to test our internal controls within a specified period, and we are not currently in compliance with, and we cannot be certain when we will be able to implement the requirements of Section 404. As a result, we may experience difficulty in producing accurate financial statements in a timely manner.

We may discover weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. In addition, our internal control over

 

51


Table of Contents

financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing, and possible remediation. If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. In addition, in connection with the future attestation process by our independent registered public accounting firm, we may encounter problems or delays in completing the implementation of any requested improvements and receiving a favorable attestation. If we cannot favorably assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide an unqualified attestation report on our internal controls, our stockholders could lose confidence in our reporting, and the market price of our stock could decline. In addition, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the Nasdaq Global Market, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, or other regulatory authorities.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act and we intend to take advantage of some of the exemptions from reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:

 

    reduced obligations with respect to financial data, including presenting only two years of audited financial statements and only two years of selected financial data;

 

    an exception from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002;

 

    reduced disclosure about our executive compensation arrangements in our periodic reports, proxy statements, and registration statements; and

 

    exemptions from the requirements of holding non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation or golden parachute arrangements.

We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the closing of this offering, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.1 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non- affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

Because the initial public offering price of our common stock will be substantially higher than the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share of our outstanding common stock following this offering, new investors will experience immediate and substantial dilution.

The initial public offering price of our common stock is substantially higher than the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share of our common stock immediately following this offering based on the total

 

52


Table of Contents

value of our tangible assets less our total liabilities. Therefore, if you purchase shares of our common stock in this offering, you will experience immediate dilution of $        per share, the difference between the assumed limited public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the range as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, and the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share of our common stock as of $        , immediately after giving effect to the issuance of shares of our common stock in this offering. See the section titled “Dilution.”

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or publish unfavorable research reports about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will, to some extent, depend on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. If one or more of the analysts who cover us publishes unfavorable commentary about us or changes their opinion of our business prospects, our share price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of or fails to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

We do not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on appreciation in the price of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any dividends on our common stock. We intend to retain any earnings to finance the operation and expansion of our business, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the future. As a result, you may only receive a return on your investment in our common stock if the market price of our common stock increases. In addition, our loan and security agreements contain restrictions on our ability to pay dividends.

Our credit facility agreement contains covenants that may restrict our business and financing activities.

Borrowings under our credit facility agreement are secured by substantially all of our assets. Our credit facility agreements also restrict our ability to, among other things:

 

    dispose of or sell assets;

 

    make material changes in our business or management;

 

    consolidate or merge with or acquire other entities;

 

    incur additional indebtedness;

 

    incur liens on our assets;

 

    pay dividends or make distributions on our capital stock;

 

    make certain investments;

 

    enter into transactions with our affiliates; and

 

    make any payment in respect of any subordinated indebtedness.

These restrictions are subject to certain exceptions. In addition, our loan and security agreement requires us to maintain a minimum liquidity threshold, among other things.

The covenants in our credit facility agreements, as well as any future financing agreements that we may enter into, may restrict our ability to finance our operations, engage in, expand or otherwise pursue our business activities and strategies. Our ability to comply with these covenants may be affected by events beyond our

 

53


Table of Contents

control, and future breaches of any of these covenants could result in a default under our credit facility agreements. If not waived, future defaults could cause all of the outstanding indebtedness under our credit facility agreements to become immediately due and payable and terminate all commitments to extend further credit.

If we do not have or are unable to generate sufficient cash available to repay our debt obligations when they become due and payable, either upon maturity or in the event of a default, we may not be able to obtain additional debt or equity financing on favorable terms, if at all, which may negatively impact our ability to operate our business.

Our charter documents and Delaware law could discourage takeover attempts and lead to management entrenchment.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws that will be in effect upon closing of this offering contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change in control of our company. These provisions could also make it difficult for stockholders to elect directors that are not nominated by the current members of our board of directors or take other corporate actions, including effecting changes in our management. These provisions include:

 

    a classified board of directors with three-year staggered terms, which could delay the ability of stockholders to change the membership of a majority of our board of directors;

 

    the ability of our board of directors to issue shares of preferred stock and to determine the price and other terms of those shares, including preferences and voting rights, without stockholder approval, which could be used to significantly dilute the ownership of a hostile acquiror;

 

    the exclusive right of our board of directors to elect a director to fill a vacancy created by the expansion of our board of directors or the resignation, death or removal of a director, which prevents stockholders from being able to fill vacancies on our board of directors;

 

    a prohibition on stockholder action by written consent, which forces stockholder action to be taken at an annual or special meeting of our stockholders;

 

    the requirement that a special meeting of stockholders may be called only by a majority vote of our entire board of directors, the chairman of our board of directors or our chief executive officer, which could delay the ability of our stockholders to force consideration of a proposal or to take action, including the removal of directors;

 

    the requirement for the affirmative vote of holders of at least     % of the voting power of all of the then-outstanding shares of the voting stock, voting together as a single class, to amend the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation relating to the management of our business or our amended and restated bylaws, which may inhibit the ability of an acquiror to effect such amendments to facilitate an unsolicited takeover attempt; and

 

    advance notice procedures with which stockholders must comply to nominate candidates to our board of directors or to propose matters to be acted upon at a stockholders’ meeting, which may discourage or deter a potential acquiror from conducting a solicitation of proxies to elect the acquiror’s own slate of directors or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us.

In addition, as a Delaware corporation, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. These provisions may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us for a certain period of time.

A Delaware corporation may opt out of this provision by express provision in its original certificate of incorporation or by amendment to its certificate of incorporation or bylaws approved by its stockholders. However, we have not opted out of, and do not currently intend to opt out of, this provision.

 

54


Table of Contents

These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by our then-current board of directors, including delay or impede a merger, tender offer, or proxy contest involving our company. The existence of these provisions could negatively affect the price of our common stock and limit opportunities for you to realize value in a corporate transaction.

Our board of directors is authorized to issue and designate shares of our preferred stock in additional series without stockholder approval.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes our board of directors, without the approval of our stockholders, to issue 5,000,000 shares of our preferred stock, subject to limitations prescribed by applicable law, rules, and regulations and the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, as shares of preferred stock in series, and to establish from time to time the number of shares to be included in each such series, and to fix the designation, powers, preferences, and rights of the shares of each such series and the qualifications, limitations, or restrictions thereof. The powers, preferences, and rights of these additional series of preferred stock may be senior to or on parity with our common stock, which may reduce its value.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forums for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which restricts our stockholders’ ability to bring a lawsuit against us or our directors, officers, or employees in jurisdictions other than Delaware and federal district courts.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for:

 

    any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf;

 

    any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty;

 

    any action asserting a claim against us arising under the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, or our amended and restated bylaws; and

 

    any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal-affairs doctrine.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation further provides that the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act.

 

55


Table of Contents

INFORMATION REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This prospectus includes forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this prospectus, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, strategy and plans, industry environment, potential growth opportunities, and our expectations for future operations, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “design,” “intend,” “expect,” “could,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “seek,” “should,” “would,” or the negative version of these words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, strategy, short- and long-term business operations and objectives, and financial needs. The forward-looking statements are contained principally in “Prospectus Summary,” “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Business.” These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning the following:

 

    our expectation that, for the foreseeable future, a significant portion of our revenues will be derived from sales of iFuse Implant System, or iFuse;

 

    our ability to expand our sales and marketing capabilities to increase demand for iFuse, expand geographically, and obtain favorable coverage and reimbursement determinations from third-party payors;

 

    our estimates of our market opportunity;

 

    developments or disputes concerning our intellectual property or other proprietary rights;

 

    competition in the markets we serve;

 

    our expectations of the reliability and performance of iFuse;

 

    our expectations of the benefits to patients, providers, and payors of iFuse;

 

    our reliance on a limited number of suppliers, including sole source suppliers, which may impact the availability of replacement instruments and materials;

 

    the factors we believe drive demand for iFuse and our ability to sustain or increase such demand;

 

    our ability to develop additional revenue opportunities, including new devices;

 

    the scope of protection we establish and maintain for intellectual property rights covering iFuse and any other device we may develop;

 

    our estimates regarding our costs and risks associated with our international operations and international expansion;

 

    our ability to retain and recruit key personnel and expand our sales force;

 

    our expectations regarding acquisitions and strategic operations;

 

    our ability to fund our working capital requirements;

 

    our compliance with, and the cost of, federal, state, and foreign regulatory requirements;

 

    the factors that may impact our financial results; and

 

    anticipated trends and challenges in our business and the markets in which we operate.

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in “Risk Factors.” Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of

 

56


Table of Contents

factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this prospectus may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur. Moreover, except as required by law, neither we nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this prospectus to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this prospectus, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

You should read this prospectus and the documents that we reference in this prospectus and have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as exhibits to the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

 

57


Table of Contents

MARKET, INDUSTRY, AND OTHER DATA

This prospectus contains estimates, projections, and other information concerning our industry, our business, and the markets for our products and product candidates, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets for our products and product candidates, their projected growth rates, the perceptions and preferences of surgeons and patients regarding certain procedures, surgeon and patient data, as well as data regarding market research, estimates, and forecasts prepared by our management. We obtained the industry, market, and other data throughout this prospectus from our own internal estimates and research, as well as from industry publications and research, surveys, and studies conducted by third parties.

Information is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research, or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances that are assumed in this information. In some cases, we do not expressly refer to the sources from which this data is derived.

 

58


Table of Contents

USE OF PROCEEDS

We estimate that the net proceeds from this offering of                  shares of common stock will be approximately $        million, or $        million if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus.

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $        per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) our net proceeds by $        million, assuming the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. Each increase (decrease) by 1,000,000 shares in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) the net proceeds from this offering by $        million, assuming the assumed initial public offering price remains the same, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions.

We expect to use the net proceeds from this offering, as follows:

 

    Approximately $        million for sales and marketing activities to support ongoing commercialization of the iFuse Implant System, including, but not limited to, expansion of our sales force, additional medical affairs and educational efforts, and expanding our international sales presence; and

 

    The remainder, if any, for working capital and general corporate purposes, including research and development and clinical studies to bring new enhancements to the existing product offering.

We may also use a portion of our net proceeds to acquire or invest in complementary products, technologies, or businesses; however, we currently have no agreements or commitments to complete any such transactions.

As of the date of this prospectus, since we cannot specify with certainty all of the particular uses of the net proceeds, our management will have broad discretion over the use of the net proceeds from this offering. Pending the use of the proceeds from this offering, we intend to invest the net proceeds in short-term interest-bearing investment-grade securities, certificates of deposit or government securities.

DIVIDEND POLICY

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock, and we do not currently intend to pay any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future. In addition, our credit facilities with SVB and Oxford restrict our ability to pay dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to support operations and to finance the growth and development of our business. Any future determination to pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors subject to applicable laws, and will depend upon, among other factors, our results of operations, financial condition, contractual restrictions and capital requirements. Our future ability to pay cash dividends on our capital stock may also be limited by the terms of any future debt or preferred securities or future credit facility.

 

59


Table of Contents

CAPITALIZATION

The following table sets forth our cash and cash equivalents and capitalization as of March 31, 2017:

 

    on an actual basis;

 

    on a pro forma basis to reflect:

 

    the conversion of all outstanding shares of our preferred stock into an aggregate of 217,201,525 shares of common stock;

 

    the issuance of                  shares of common stock upon the net exercise of outstanding warrants, with an exercise price of $0.51 per share, immediately prior to the closing of this offering, assuming an initial public offering price of $         per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus;

 

    the reclassification of our preferred stock warrant liability to additional paid-in capital immediately prior to the closing of this offering; and

 

    the filing and effectiveness of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation upon the closing of this offering; and

 

    on a pro forma as adjusted basis to give further effect to the sale of                  shares of common stock in this offering assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, and after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

You should read this information together with our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this prospectus and the information set forth in “Selected Consolidated Financial Data” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

 

     As of March 31, 2017  
     Actual     Pro
Forma(1)
     Pro
Forma As
Adjusted(1)
 
     (in thousands, except for share and
per share amounts)
 

Cash and cash equivalents

   $ 28,732     $      $  
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Convertible preferred stock warrants liability

   $ 681     $      $  

Total borrowings(2)

     29,389       

Convertible preferred stock, $0.0001 par value, 217,885,520 shares authorized, 213,689,844 shares issued and outstanding, actual; no shares issued and outstanding pro forma and pro forma as adjusted

     118,548       

Stockholders’ equity (deficit):

       

Preferred stock, $0.0001 par value, no shares authorized, issued or outstanding, actual, 5,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued or outstanding pro forma and pro forma as adjusted

       

Common stock, $0.0001 par value, 348,000,000 shares authorized, 62,819,239 shares issued and outstanding, actual; 100,000,000 shares authorized,             shares issued and outstanding pro forma; and 100,000,000 shares authorized,             shares issued and outstanding pro forma as adjusted

     7       

Additional paid-in capital

     8,468       

Stockholders’ notes receivable

     (84     

Accumulated other comprehensive income

     477       

Accumulated deficit

     (123,274     
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)

     (114,406     
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total capitalization

   $ 34,212     $               $           
  

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

60


Table of Contents

 

(1) Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $        per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) each of pro forma as adjusted cash and cash equivalents, additional paid-in capital, total stockholders’ equity and total capitalization by $        million, assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same, and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. We may also increase or decrease the number of shares we are offering. An increase (decrease) of 1,000,000 shares in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) each of pro forma as adjusted cash and cash equivalents, additional paid-in-capital, total stockholders’ equity and total capitalization by $        million, assuming that the assumed initial price to the public remains the same, and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. The pro forma as adjusted information discussed above is illustrative only, and we will adjust this information based on the actual initial public offering price, number of shares offered and other terms of this offering determined at pricing.
(2) Total borrowings consist of $30.2 million of principal, net of discount.

The number of shares of common stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on shares of common stock outstanding as of March 31, 2017, and excludes the following:

 

    55,294,071 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options outstanding as of March 31, 2017, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.23 per share;

 

    4,141,369 shares of common stock, as converted, issuable upon the exercise of warrants outstanding as of March 31, 2017, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.48 per share;

 

    1,712,363 additional shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2008 Stock Plan, which shares will cease to be available for issuance at the time our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan becomes effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering;

 

    42,502,151 shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, as well as any increases in the number of share of common stock reserved for future issuance under this plan, which will become effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering; and

 

    9,444,922 shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2017 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as well as any increases in the number of share of common stock reserved for future issuance under this plan, which will become effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering.

 

61


Table of Contents

DILUTION

If you invest in our common stock in this offering, your ownership interest will be immediately diluted to the extent of the difference between the assumed initial public offering price per share and the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share of our common stock after this offering.

Historical net tangible book value (deficit) per share represents our total tangible assets less our liabilities and preferred stock that is not included in equity divided by the total number of shares outstanding. As of March 31, 2017, our historical net tangible book value (deficit) was $(115.2) million, or $(1.83) per share.

Our pro forma net tangible book value as of March 31, 2017, was $        million, or $        per share after giving effect to (i) the conversion of all outstanding shares of our preferred stock into an aggregate of 217,201,525 shares of common stock; (ii) the issuance of                  shares of common stock upon the net exercise of outstanding warrants, with an exercise price of $0.51 per share, immediately prior to the closing of this offering, assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus; (iii) the reclassification of our preferred stock warrant liability to additional paid-in capital immediately prior to the closing of this offering.

After giving further effect to receipt of the net proceeds of our sale of                  shares of common stock, assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses, our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value as of March 31, 2017, would have been approximately $        million, or $        per share. This represents an immediate increase in pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value of $        per share to our existing stockholders and an immediate dilution of $        per share to our existing stockholders and an immediately dilution of $        per share to investors purchasing common stock in this offering.

The following table illustrates this dilution to new investors on a per share basis:

 

Assumed initial public offering price per share

     $           

Historical net tangible book value (deficit) per share as of March 31, 2017

   $ (1.83  

Pro forma increase in net tangible book value (deficit) per share attributable to the conversion of our preferred stock and preferred stock warrants

    

Pro forma net tangible book value per share as of March 31, 2017

    

Increase in net tangible book value per share attributable to new investors purchasing shares in this offering

    
  

 

 

   

Pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share after this offering

    
    

 

 

 

Dilution per share to new investors participating in this offering

     $  
    

 

 

 

If the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares in this offering is exercised in full, the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value would be $        per share, the increase in the pro forma net tangible book value per share for existing stockholders would be $        per share and the dilution to new investors participating in this offering would be $        per share.

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value, by $        per share and the dilution per share to new investors by $        per share, assuming the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

We may also increase or decrease the number of shares we are offering. An increase (decrease) of 1,000,000 shares in the number of shares we are offering would increase (decrease) our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value by $        million, or $        per share, and the pro forma dilution per share to investors in this offering

 

62


Table of Contents

by $        per share, assuming that the assumed initial public offering price remains the same, and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses. The pro forma information discussed above is illustrative only and will change based on the actual initial public offering price, number of shares and other terms of this offering determined at pricing.

The table below summarizes, as of March 31, 2017, on the pro forma basis described above, the number of shares of our common stock, the total consideration, and the average price per share (1) paid to us by our existing stockholders and (2) to be paid by new investors participating in this offering assuming an initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

 

    

 

Shares Purchased

    Total Consideration     Weighted-
Average
Price Per
Share
 
     Number      Percent     Amount      Percent    
     (in thousands)  

Existing stockholders

               $                            $               

New investors

            
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

Total

        100.0     $                    100.0  
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

   

In addition, if the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares is exercised in full, the number of shares held by existing stockholders will be reduced to             % of the total number of shares of common stock to be outstanding upon closing of this offering, and the number of shares of common stock held by new investors participating in this offering will be further increased to             % of the total number of shares of common stock to be outstanding upon closing of the offering.

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $        per share would increase (decrease) total consideration paid by new investors by $        million and increase (decrease) the percent of total consideration paid by new investors by     %, assuming the number of shares we are offering, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same. We may also increase or decrease the number of shares we are offering. An increase (decrease) of 1,000,000 in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) total consideration paid by new investors by $        million, assuming that the assumed initial price to the public remains the same.

The number of shares of common stock to be outstanding after the closing of this offering excludes:

 

    55,294,071 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options outstanding as of March 31, 2017, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.23 per share;

 

    4,141,369 shares of common stock, as converted, issuable upon the exercise of warrants outstanding as of March 31, 2017, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.48 per share;

 

    1,712,363 additional shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2008 Stock Plan, which shares will cease to be available for issuance at the time our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan becomes effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering;

 

    42,502,151 shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, as well as any increases in the number of share of common stock reserved for future issuance under this plan, which will become effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering; and

 

    9,444,922 shares of our common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2017 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as well as any increases in the number of share of common stock reserved for future issuance under this plan, which will become effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement for this offering.

 

63


Table of Contents

To the extent that any outstanding stock options or warrants are exercised, new options are issued under our stock-based compensation plans or we issue additional shares of common stock in the future, there will be further dilution to investors participating in this offering. If all outstanding options under our 2008 Stock Plan as of March 31, 2017 and all outstanding warrants as of March 31, 2017 were exercised for cash, then our existing stockholders, including the holders of these options and warrants, would own     % and our new investors would own     % of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding upon the closing of this offering, respectively. In such event, the total consideration paid by our existing stockholders, including the holders of these options and warrants, would be $            , or     %, the total consideration paid by our new investors would be $            , or     %, the average price per share paid by our existing stockholders would be $             and the average price per share paid by our new investors would be $            .

 

64


Table of Contents

SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and related notes included within this prospectus. The consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, and the consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2015 and 2016, are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. The consolidated statements of operations data for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2017, and the consolidated balance sheet data at March 31, 2017, are derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in the future and our results for the three months ended March 31, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full fiscal year.

 

     Year Ended December 31,     Three Months Ended March 31,  
                 2015                             2016                             2016                             2017              
                 (unaudited)  
     (in thousands, except per share data)  

Consolidated Statements of Operations Data:

        

Revenue

   $ 41,173     $ 42,101     $ 9,589     $ 11,426  

Cost of goods sold

     5,398       5,165       1,153       1,434  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Gross profit

     35,775       36,936       8,436       9,992  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Operating expenses:

        

Sales and marketing

     39,799       35,215       8,854       10,273  

Research and development

     8,606       6,380       1,625       1,419  

General and administrative

     13,793       12,906       4,439       3,855  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

     62,198       54,501       14,918       15,547  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Loss from operations

     (26,423     (17,565     (6,482     (5,555

Interest and other income (expense), net:

        

Interest income

     22       71       11       33  

Interest expense

     (1,686     (3,308     (817     (945

Other income (expense), net

     (67     213       647       (122
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net loss

     (28,154     (20,589     (6,641     (6,589

Other comprehensive income:

        

Changes in foreign currency translation

     247       67       (178     5  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Comprehensive loss

   $ (27,907   $ (20,522   $ (6,819   $ (6,584
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net loss per common share, basic and diluted(1)

   $ (0.51   $ (0.35   $ (0.11   $ (0.11
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted-average common shares used to compute basic and diluted net loss per common share(1)

     55,292,845       59,659,307       58,782,930       61,735,139  
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Pro forma net loss per common share, basic and diluted (unaudited)(1)

     $       $               
    

 

 

     

 

 

 

Pro forma weighted-average number of common shares used to compute basic and diluted net loss per share(unaudited)(1)

        
    

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

(1) See Note 14 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus for the method used to calculate net loss per common share, basic and diluted, and pro forma net loss per common share, basic and diluted.

 

65


Table of Contents
     As of December 31,     As of March 31,  
     2015     2016     2017  
                 (unaudited)  
     (in thousands)  

Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:

      

Cash and cash equivalents

   $ 20,272     $ 27,900     $ 28,732  

Working capital

     23,089       22,938       23,899  

Total assets

     35,421       39,436       40,980  

Convertible preferred stock warrant liability

     957       588       681  

Total borrowings

     25,056       29,310       29,389  

Total liabilities

     32,822       35,048       36,838  

Convertible preferred stock

     92,796       113,121       118,548  

Total stockholders’ deficit

     (90,197     (108,733     (114,406

 

66


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with “Selected Consolidated Financial Data” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion and other parts of this prospectus contain forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, such as our plans, objectives, expectations, intentions and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements. Some of the numbers included herein have been rounded for convenience of presentation. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below and those discussed in “Risk Factors” included elsewhere in this prospectus.

Overview

We are a medical device company that has pioneered a proprietary minimally invasive surgical implant system to fuse the sacroiliac joint for treatment of common types of sacroiliac joint disorders that cause lower back pain. We introduced our iFuse Implant System, or iFuse, in 2009 in the United States and in 2010 in certain countries in the European Union. Since 2009, more than 25,000 iFuse Procedures have been performed by over 1,300 surgeons, primarily in the United States. Based on our commercial experience and our market research, we believe iFuse is currently used in approximately 70% of minimally invasive surgical fusions of the sacroiliac joint in the United States.

We have incurred net losses since our inception in 2008. During 2015 and 2016 and for the three months ended March 31, 2017 we had net losses of $28.2 million, $20.6 million, and $6.6 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $123.3 million. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through private placements of equity securities, certain debt-related financing arrangements and sales of our products. We have devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development of our products, sales and marketing activities and clinical and regulatory matters for our products. There can be no assurances that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue from our existing products or from any of our product candidates in development, and to transition to profitability and generate positive cash flows. Following this offering, we expect that our operating expenses will increase as we continue to build our commercial infrastructure, develop, enhance and commercialize our existing and new products and incur additional operational and reporting costs associated with being a public company. As a result, we expect to continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve profitability. Furthermore, even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on an ongoing basis. If we do not achieve profitability, it will be more difficult for us to finance our business, accomplish our strategic objectives and continue operations.

Factors Affecting Results of Operations

Coverage and Reimbursement

Prior to our launch of iFuse, Medicare and most private insurance companies reimbursed surgeons for sacroiliac joint fusions using either an established Category I Current Procedure Terminology, or CPT, code or an unlisted code. A Category I CPT code is typically assigned to procedures that are consistent with contemporary medical practice and are widely performed. Procedures with a longstanding Category I CPT code are usually reimbursed.

However, effective July 1, 2013, the AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel created a new Category III CPT code for fusion of the sacroiliac joint using a minimally invasive or percutaneous approach. Category III CPT codes are used for new and emerging technologies and are reimbursed sporadically. This new code functionally redefined coding for sacroiliac joint fusions because it meant that minimally invasive or percutaneous fusion procedures

 

67


Table of Contents

should not be billed using the general Category I CPT code for sacroiliac fusion surgery. This coding change was accompanied by the establishment of a Medicare hospital outpatient rate for the new code.

Following the creation of the new Category III CPT code, a number of papers demonstrating the clinical success of the iFuse Procedure were published. These studies, along with the support of several professional societies and surgeons, resulted in the AMA CPT Editorial Panel establishing a new Category I CPT code specifically for sacroiliac joint fusion surgery using a minimally invasive or percutaneous approach. This new Category I CPT code became effective on January 1, 2015.

Subsequently, in March 2015, our INSITE prospective, randomized controlled multi-center clinical trial was published. In June 2015, the largest spine society in the world, the North American Spine Society, or NASS, published a positive coverage recommendation document, based on the clinical evidence, advocating to insurance companies and Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs, that sacroiliac joint fusion using a minimally invasive surgical approach should be routinely reimbursed. In March 2015, International Society for Advancement of Spine Surgery, or ISASS also published a similar positive advocacy document intended to encourage insurance companies in the United States to reimburse for the procedure.

Coverage decisions for this code are made independently by each of the private insurance companies and the eight MACs, and the process of obtaining coverage is laborious. As of June 30, 2016, because of the iFuse clinical evidence, all eight MACs were covering the procedure. As of March 31, 2017, eight of the largest 50 private payors were covering the iFuse Procedure regularly while the vast majority of private payors were evaluating their coverage policies. In addition, because of the iFuse clinical evidence, the private payors HCSC, Geisinger and SelectHealth, have issued positive coverage policies for iFuse while specifically excluding coverage for any competitive products. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2016, the increasing coverage, combined with our sales and marketing efforts, has led to an increase in the number of procedures and we believe will lead to a return to revenue growth.

Our Sales Force

We market and sell iFuse primarily through a direct sales force and a small number of third-party distributors. Our target customer base includes approximately 7,500 surgeons who perform spine and/or pelvic surgery, including orthopedic spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, general orthopedic surgeons, and orthopedic trauma surgeons.

Our direct sales organization in the United States is comprised of seven sales regions. Each region is comprised of a number of territory sales managers who act as the primary customer contact. Our territory sales managers have extensive training and experience selling medical devices for spine problems and pain management, generally focusing on emerging technologies and markets. As of March 31, 2017, our territory sales managers were led by seven regional sales managers who reported to our Senior Director of U.S. Sales. Our Senior Director of U.S. Sales reports to our Chief Commercial Officer. As of March 31, 2017, our U.S. sales force consisted of 48 sales representatives directly employed by us and 13 third-party distributors.

In addition to general sales and marketing training, we provide our sales organization with comprehensive, hands-on cadaveric and dry-lab training sessions focusing on the clinical benefits of our products and how to use them. We believe our robust training and professional development programs have been an important component of our success to date and will help support our anticipated future growth. We expect to continue to increase the size of our sales organization in order to increase sales and market penetration and to provide the significant, ongoing level of customer support required by our sales and marketing strategy.

As of March 31, 2017, we had 27 employees working in our European operations, and have established operations in Italy (2010), Germany (2014) and United Kingdom (2015). As of March 31, 2017, our international sales force consisted of 12 sales representatives directly employed by us and 28 exclusive third-party distributors, which together have had sales in 27 countries through March 31, 2017. We anticipate continuing to build our

 

68


Table of Contents

operations in the major European countries while establishing distributor arrangements in smaller ones. We intend to follow a similar model in Europe to the one established in the United States, working with internationally recognized healthcare professional experts as we expand our training and reimbursement activities. As of the date of this prospectus, surgeons had performed the first iFuse Procedures in New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and Taiwan.

We have in the past and expect in the future to enter into different compensation arrangements with our sales professionals which include minimum guaranteed commissions. This has impacted our compensation expenses in the past and we expect it will in the future.

Share-Based Compensation Expense

Prior to this offering, we have granted employee compensation in the form of equity awards. In connection with this offering, we expect to implement equity compensation incentive plans which provide for future grants of equity compensation awards to our employees and directors. We will measure the share compensation cost in the period in which we grant such awards and recognize the share compensation expense over the requisite service period of the award.

Public Company Costs

The activities associated with the initial public offering process, as well as any future public offerings, may have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows. We expect to incur a material increase in incremental general and administrative expenses as a result of becoming a publicly traded company. These costs include expenses associated with our financial and operational reporting, investor relations, registrar and transfer agent fees, incremental insurance costs, and accounting and legal services, among others.

Components of Results of Operations

Revenue

We derive substantially all our revenue from sales of iFuse. Revenue from sales of iFuse fluctuate based on volume of cases (procedures performed), discounts, mix of international and U.S. sales, and the number of implants used for a particular patient. Similar to other orthopedic companies, our revenue can also fluctuate from quarter to quarter due to a variety of factors, including reimbursement, sales force, physician awareness, and seasonality. Our revenue from international sales may also be significantly impacted by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates between the U.S. dollar (our reporting currency) and the local currency.

Cost of Goods Sold, Gross Profit, and Gross Margin

We utilize third-party manufacturers for production of the iFuse Implants and instrument sets. Cost of goods sold consists primarily of costs of the components of iFuse Implants and instruments, scrap and inventory obsolescence, as well as distribution-related expenses such as logistics and shipping costs. Beginning in 2013, our cost of goods sold included the effect of the excise tax on the sale of medical devices sold in the United States. Effective January 2016, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was amended to include a provision to suspend the sales tax on medical devices through 2017. We anticipate that our cost of goods sold will increase as reimbursement increases and as we develop and sell new products, including our next generation iFuse implant, the iFuse-3D, and new instruments.

Our gross margins have been and will continue to be affected by a variety of factors, including the cost to have our products manufactured for us, pricing pressure, and the factors described above impacting our revenue. Our gross margins are typically higher on products we sell directly as compared to products we sell through third-party distributors.

 

69


Table of Contents

Operating Expenses

Our operating expenses consist of sales and marketing, research and development, and general and administrative expenses. Personnel costs are the most significant component of operating expenses and consist of salaries, sales commissions and other cash and stock-based compensation related expenses. We expect operating expenses to increase in absolute dollars, as we continue to invest and grow our business, but decrease as a percentage of revenue. In late 2015, we implemented cost-saving measures which reduced our operational expenses though headcount reductions, reduced project spending, and more targeted marketing and surgeon trainings.

Sales and Marketing Expenses

Sales and marketing expenses primarily consist of salaries, stock-based compensation expense, and other compensation related costs, for personnel employed in sales, marketing, medical affairs and professional education departments. In addition, our sales and marketing expenses include commissions and bonuses, generally based on a percentage of sales, to our sales managers and directors, direct sales representatives and third-party distributors. We expect our sales and marketing expenses to increase in absolute dollars with the continued commercialization of our current and future products and continued investment in our global sales organization, including broadening our relationships with third-party distributors, expanding exclusivity commitments among them and increasing the number of our direct sales representatives, especially with increased reimbursement and adoption in the United States. Our sales and marketing expenses may fluctuate from period to period due to the seasonality of our business and as we continue to add direct sales representatives in new territories.

Research and Development Expenses

Our research and development expenses primarily consist of engineering, product development, clinical and regulatory expenses (including clinical study expenses), and consulting services, outside prototyping services, outside research activities, materials, depreciation and other costs associated with development of our products. Research and development expenses also include related personnel and consultants’ compensation and stock-based compensation expense. We expense research and development costs as they are incurred. We expect research and development expense to increase in absolute dollars as we develop new products, add research and development personnel and undergo clinical activities, including more clinical studies to gain additional regulatory clearances and wider surgeon adoption.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses primarily consist of compensation, stock-based compensation expense, and other costs for finance, accounting, legal, compliance, reimbursement, and administrative matters. We expect our general and administrative expenses to increase to support the growth of our business. We also expect to incur additional general and administrative expenses as a result of operating as a public company, including expenses related to compliance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and those of the Nasdaq Global Market on which our securities will be traded, additional insurance expenses, investor relations activities, and other administrative and professional services. We expect the general and administrative expenses to increase as we continue to incur incremental costs for public company reporting and governance, but decrease as a percentage of revenue over time.

Interest Expense

Interest expense is related to borrowings and includes the amortization of debt discounts derived from the issuance of warrants.

 

70


Table of Contents

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net consists primarily of the changes in fair value of our preferred stock warrant liability and net gain (loss) on foreign currency transactions. In connection with this initial public offering, we expect that our preferred stock warrant liability will be eliminated.

Comparison of the Three Months Ended March 31, 2016 and 2017

Revenue, Cost of Goods Sold, Gross Profit, and Gross Margin

 

     Three Months Ended March 31,               
         2016             2017         $ Change      % Change  
     (in thousands, except for percentages)  

Revenue

   $ 9,589     $ 11,426     $ 1,837        19

Cost of goods sold

     1,153       1,434       281        24

Gross profit

     8,436       9,992       1,556        18

Gross margin

     88     87     

Revenue. Revenue increased by $1.8 million, or 19%, for the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016. The majority of the increase is due to a higher number of domestic cases as a result of improved U.S. reimbursement coverage, as well as a higher number of international cases as a result of an expanded international direct sales force.

Cost of Goods Sold, Gross Profit, and Gross Margin. Total cost of goods sold increased $0.3 million, or 24%, from the three months ended March 31, 2016 to the three months ended March 31, 2017, which corresponds to the increase in the number of cases performed. Gross profit increased $1.6 million, or 18%, to $10.0 million, from the three months ended March 31, 2016 to the three months ended March 31, 2017, due to higher revenue.

Operating Expenses

 

     Three Months Ended March 31,              
         2016             2017                  
     Amount      % of Total
Revenue
    Amount      % of Total
Revenue
    $ Change     % Change  
     (in thousands, except for percentages)  

Sales and marketing

   $ 8,854        92   $ 10,273        90   $ 1,419       16

Research and development

     1,625        17     1,419        12     (206     (13 )% 

General and administrative

     4,439        46     3,855        34     (584     (13 )% 
  

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

   

Total operating expenses

   $ 14,918        155   $ 15,547        136   $ 629    
  

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

   

Sales and Marketing Expenses. Sales and marketing expenses increased by $1.4 million, or 16%, for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016. The increase was primarily due to $0.8 million in increased salaries, commissions, and related expenses due to an increase in the number of sales representatives hired in late 2016 and first quarter of 2017 to support the growth of our business. The remainder of the increase is due to $0.3 million in increased marketing professional services and $0.2 million in higher travel expenses for employees and surgeon training programs.

 

71


Table of Contents

Research and Development Expenses. Research and development expenses decreased by $0.2 million, or 13%, for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease was primarily due to a $0.1 million reduction in clinical spending related to the substantial completion of the INSITE, SIFI and iMIA studies in the first quarter of 2016 and $0.1 million reduction in project spending such as consulting and materials from lower engineering project spending in the first quarter of 2017 as compared to the same period of the prior year.

General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses decreased by $0.6 million, or 13%, for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease was primarily due to $1.5 million of professional public offering fees expensed in the first quarter of 2016 as a result of delays in the public offering process. The decrease was partially offset by a $0.5 million write-off of principal and interest due on a promissory note from our Chief Executive Officer. In addition, we incurred $0.4 million of higher legal cost related to patent matters and general corporate legal spend during the first quarter of 2017 compared to the same period in the prior year.

Interest and Other Income (Expense), Net

 

     Three Months Ended March 31,              
         2016             2017         $ Change     % Change  
     (in thousands, except for percentages)  

Interest expense

   $ (817   $ (945   $ (128     16

Other income (expense), net

     658       (89     (747     (114 )% 

Interest Expense. Interest expense increased by $0.1 million, or 16%, for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, primarily due to a $4.0 million increase in our level of borrowings in December 2016. In addition, the variable interest rate of our outstanding debt increased due to the Fed raising the prime interest rate in December 2016.

Other Income (Expense), Net. Other income (expense), net, decreased by $0.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease was primarily due to a $0.6 million change in the fair value of our preferred stock warrants outstanding, which are accounted for as a liability and revalued at each reporting period and $0.1 million of foreign exchange losses based on movement in the British Pound and Euro during the first quarter of 2016 compared to the same period of 2017.

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2015 and 2016

Revenue, Cost of Goods Sold, Gross Profit, and Gross Margin

 

     Year Ended December 31,              
         2015             2016         $ Change     % Change  
     (in thousands, except for percentages)  

Revenue

   $ 41,173     $ 42,101     $ 928       2

Cost of goods sold

     5,398       5,165       (233     (4 )% 

Gross profit

     35,775       36,936       1,161       3

Gross margin

     87     88    

Revenue. Revenue increased $0.9 million, or 2%, from 2015 to 2016. The increase of $0.6 million was primarily due to higher international revenue as a result of an expanded international direct sales force. The remaining increase of $0.3 million was due to improved U.S. reimbursement coverage, which resulted in a modest increase in the number of iFuse Procedures performed domestically.

 

72


Table of Contents

Cost of Goods Sold, Gross Profit, and Gross Margin. Total cost of goods sold decreased $0.2 million, or 4%, from 2015 to 2016. The decrease was primarily due to $0.7 million in reduced medical device tax as a result of a 2-year tax moratorium effective January 1, 2016 and a $0.3 million decrease in excess write-offs of surgical tools incurred in 2015. These decreases were offset primarily by an increase of $0.8 million in product costs as a result of a higher overhead component to our implants. Gross profit increased $1.2 million, or 3%, to $36.9 million from 2015 to 2016 due to higher revenue and lower cost of sales.

Operating Expenses

 

     Year Ended December 31,        
     2015     2016     $ Change     % Change  
     Amount      % of Total
Revenue
    Amount      % of Total
Revenue
     
     (in thousands, except for percentages)              

Sales and marketing

   $ 39,799        97   $ 35,215        84   $ (4,584     (12 )% 

Research and development

     8,606        21     6,380        15     (2,226     (26 )% 

General and administrative

     13,793        34     12,906        31     (887     (6 )% 
  

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

   

Total operating expenses

   $ 62,198        152   $ 54,501        130   $ (7,697  
  

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

   

Sales and Marketing Expenses. Sales and marketing expenses decreased $4.6 million, or 12%, from 2015 to 2016. The decrease was primarily due to $2.9 million in reduced salaries, guaranteed minimum commissions, and related expenses from lower domestic headcount, $0.7 million in reduced surgeon training costs, $0.5 million in lower travel expenses for employees and surgeon training programs, and $0.5 million in reduced general marketing expenses. The reductions were part of cost-saving measures put in place in late 2015 with a goal of focusing resources on high potential sales and marketing opportunities.

Research and Development Expenses. Research and development expenses decreased $2.2 million, or 26%, from 2015 to 2016. The decrease was partially due to a $0.9 million reduction in clinical trial expense as the INSITE and SIFI studies matured. The decrease was also due to $0.6 million in reduced consulting and materials from lower engineering project spending and a $0.6 million reduction in salaries and related expenditures, including travel, from lower headcount; both part of the cost-saving measures put in place in late 2015 to focus on key research and development activities that would drive the business in the near term.

General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses decreased by $0.9 million, or 6%, from 2015 to 2016. The decrease was partially due to a $1.3 million reduction in legal fees of which $0.7 million was for general legal matters and $0.6 million was for compliance work and investigatory work performed in 2015 related to a legal claim. In addition, the decrease was partially due to a $0.6 million reduction in external professional fees related to reimbursement related activities and a $0.4 million reduction in compliance and regulatory fees incurred in 2015 in efforts to prepare for an offering. These decreases were offset primarily by an increase of $1.5 million in professional public offering fees previously recorded on the Balance Sheet, recognized in 2016 as a result of delays in the public offering process.

Interest and Other Income (Expense), Net

 

     Years Ended December 31,              
         2015             2016         $ Change     % Change  
     (in thousands except for percentages)  

Interest expense

   $ (1,686     (3,308   $ (1,622     96

Other income (expense), net

     (45     284       329       (731 )% 

 

73


Table of Contents

Interest Expense. Interest expense increased $1.6 million, or 96%, from 2015 to 2016 primarily due to an additional debt financing arrangement with Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB, and Oxford Finance LLC, or Oxford, that we entered into in late October 2015.

Other Income (Expense), Net. Other income (expense) increased $0.3 million, from 2015 to 2016, primarily due a gain of $0.4 million related to the change in the fair value of our preferred stock warrants outstanding, which are accounted for as a liability and revalued at each reporting period. The gain was offset by $0.1 million of foreign exchange losses based on movement in the British Pound and Euro.

Liquidity, Capital Resources, and Borrowings

At March 31, 2017, our principal sources of liquidity were cash and cash equivalents of $28.7 million, unused borrowing capacity under our line of credit of the lesser of $4.0 million and 80% of the amount of certain customer accounts receivable, and $5.0 million of unused borrowing capacity under our Term Loan which is contingent upon achievement of certain conditions. Since inception, we have financed our operations through private placements of preferred stock, debt financing arrangements, and the sale of our products. At March 31, 2017, we had $29.4 million principal amount of outstanding debt under our Term Loan, net of debt discounts. Our Term Loan and Line of Credit are described below under “Borrowings.”

We have incurred an accumulated deficit of $123.3 million from our operations through March 31, 2017, and expect to incur additional losses in the future. Our recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, an explanatory paragraph was included in the report on our financial statements as of, and for the year ended, December 31, 2016, describing the existence of substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We believe that our cash and cash equivalents as of March 31, 2017, together with the expected net proceeds from this offering, cash generated from sales and funds available under our borrowing arrangements will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash requirements for at least the next 12 months following this offering. We will need to generate significant sales to achieve profitability and we might not be able to do so. Our expected future capital requirements may depend on many factors including expanding our surgeon base, the expansion of our salesforce, and the timing and extent of spending on the development of our technology to increase our product offerings. We may seek funds through borrowings or through additional rounds of financing, including private or public equity or debt offerings. Any future debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. Furthermore, we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital or generate sufficient cash from operations to adequately fund our operations, we will need to curtail planned activities to reduce costs, which will likely harm our ability to execute on our business plan and continue operations.

Borrowings

In October 2015, we entered into a term loan facility and a revolving line of credit with SVB and Oxford, for (i) $35.2 million and (ii) the lesser of $4.0 million and 80% of the amount of certain customer accounts receivable, respectively. The first tranche of the term loan closed in October 2015 for $16.2 million, the proceeds of which were used to pay off previous loans with SVB of $15.5 million and final fees of $0.7 million related to the previous loans. Prepayment fees on the then existing debt facilities were waived. We drew the second tranche of $10.0 million in November 2015 and the third tranche of $4.0 million in December 2016. The agreement also provides for a fourth tranche of $5.0 million available through March 2017 contingent upon us achieving at least $24.0 million in trailing six-month revenue. The maturity date of the Term Loan is December 1, 2019, and it carries an interest rate equal to the greater of 11% or the WSJ Prime rate plus 7.75%. In connection with this agreement, we also issued to SVB and Oxford warrants to purchase, in the aggregate, 1,145,231 shares of our Series 6 preferred stock, with an exercise price of $0.92 per share. Subsequently, in August 2016, we amended the agreement to extend the draw period of the fourth tranche for an additional three months. In conjunction with the additional draw of the Term Loan, we issued an additional 174,844 shares warrants for the purchase of Series

 

74


Table of Contents

7 preferred stock at an exercise price of $0.56 per share in December 2016. In February 2017, we amended the agreement to extend the interest only period by six months to October 2017 and extended the draw period of the fourth tranche through January 2018. As of the date of this prospectus, our total debt balance is $30.2 million.

As of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, the amount of the revolving line of credit was the lesser of $4.0 million or 80% of the amount of certain customer accounts receivable. It carries an interest rate equal to the WSJ Prime rate plus 3% with a maturity of December 1, 2019. No draws have been made on this facility as of December 31, 2016 or March 31, 2017.

All debt facilities continue to be collateralized by all of our assets except intellectual property. We agreed not to pledge a security interest in our intellectual property to any other party so long as SVB and Oxford has debt outstanding from us.

As of March 31, 2017, we were in compliance with all of our debt obligations and covenants.

Contractual Obligations

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2016:

 

     Payments Due By Period         
     Total      Less than
1 year
     1-3 years      4-5 years      More than
5 years
 
     (in thousands)  

Principal obligations on the debt arrangements(1)

   $ 30,200      $ 3,356      $ 26,844      $      $  

Interest obligations on the debt arrangements(1)

     6,836        3,507        3,329                

Operating leases(2)

     2,111        1,248        751        80        32  
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 39,147      $ 8,111      $ 30,924      $ 80      $ 32  
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(1) Principal obligations on the debt arrangements reflect the amendment to the debt arrangements in February 2017 and the increase in the prime interest rate in March 2017. For further discussion, see Note 6, “Borrowings” of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
(2) Operating lease obligations consist primarily of lease payments for our San Jose, California facility and Europe facilities.

Cash Flows

The following table sets forth the primary sources and uses of cash for each of the periods presented below:

 

     Years Ended
December 31,
             
     2015     2016     $ Change     % Change  
     (in thousands, except for percentages)  

Net cash (used in) provided by:

        

Operating activities

   $ (26,718   $ (16,753   $ 9,965       (37 )% 

Investing activities

     (2,238     (441     1,797       (80 )% 

Financing activities

     31,383       24,755       (6,628     (21 )% 

Effects of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents

     247       67       (180     (73 )% 
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents

   $ 2,674     $ 7,628     $ 4,954    
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

75


Table of Contents
     Three Months Ended
March 31,
              
     2016     2017     $ Change      % Change  
     (in thousands, except for percentages)  

Net cash (used in) provided by:

         

Operating activities

   $ (5,224   $ (4,665   $ 559         (11 )% 

Investing activities

     (58     (40     18         (31 )% 

Financing activities

     176        5,532        5,356         3043

Effects of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents

     (178     5        183         (103 )% 
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents

   $ (5,284   $ 832      $ 6,116      
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

Cash Used in Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities improved $0.6 million from the three months ended March 31, 2016 to the three months ended March 31, 2017. The improvement in the net cash used in operating activities was primarily due to the timing of vendor payments and higher accounts payable levels resulting in lower cash usage for the period.

Net cash used in operating activities improved $10.0 million, or 37%, from 2015 to 2016. The improvement in the net cash used in operating activities was primarily due to cost savings efforts, reduced inventory levels, and timing of vendor payments.

Cash Used in Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was relatively constant from the three months ended March 31, 2016 to the three months ended March 31, 2017 and primarily consisted of instrument set purchases. The instrument sets are carried by our sales representatives and used during iFuse procedures.

Net cash used in investing activities improved $1.8 million, or 80%, from 2015 to 2016. The improvement in net cash used in investing activities was primarily due to a reduction in instrument set purchases.

Cash Provided by Financing Activities

Cash provided by financing activities increased $5.4 million from the three months ended March 31, 2016 to the three months ended March 31, 2017. Cash provided by financing activities for the three months ended March 31, 2017 consisted primarily of net proceeds of $5.4 million from the issuance of Series 7 preferred stock from February through March 2017. Cash provided by financing activities for the three months ended March 31, 2016 consisted primarily of proceeds of $0.1 million from the exercise of common stock options.

Cash provided by financing activities declined $6.6 million, or 21%, from 2015 to 2016. Cash provided by financing activities during 2016 consisted of net proceeds of $20.3 million from the issuance of Series 7 preferred stock from June through August 2016, proceeds from additional debt financing of $4.0 million in December 2016 and $0.3 million from the exercise of common stock options. Cash provided by financing activities during 2015 consisted of net proceeds of $21.6 million from the issuance of Series 6 preferred stock from April through June 2015, proceeds from debt financing of $10.0 million in November 2015, and $0.8 million from the exercise of common stock options, partially offset by payments of $1.1 million related to the preparation of a public offering.

Critical Accounting Policies, Significant Judgments, and Use of Estimates

This discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of these

 

76


Table of Contents

consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, as well as the reported revenue generated and expenses incurred during the reporting periods. Our estimates are based on our historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates. We believe that the accounting policies discussed below are critical to understanding our historical and future performance, as these policies relate to the more significant areas involving management’s judgments and estimates. For more detail on our critical accounting policies, see Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this prospectus.

Revenue Recognition

Our revenue is derived from the sale of our products to medical groups and hospitals through our direct sales force and distributors throughout the United States and Europe.

We recognize revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, title and risk of loss has transferred to the customer, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured. For the majority of product sales where our sales representative delivers the product at the point of implantation at hospitals or other medical facilities, we recognize revenue related to product sales upon delivery of the product and receipt of a purchase agreement or agreement on pricing terms with the customer. For the remaining sales to distributors, where the product is ordered in advance of implantation and a valid purchase order has been received, we recognize revenue upon the delivery of product and when all other revenue recognition criteria are met.

Stock-based Compensation

Stock-based compensation cost is measured at the date of grant based on the estimated fair value of the award, net of estimated forfeitures. We estimate the grant date fair value and the resulting stock-based compensation expense using the Black Scholes option pricing model. The grant date fair value of a stock-based award is recognized as an expense over the requisite service period of the award on a straight-line basis.

We account for stock-based compensation arrangements with non-employees using a fair value approach. The fair value of these options is measured using the Black-Scholes option pricing model reflecting an expected life that is assumed to be the remaining contractual life of the option. The compensation costs of these arrangements are subject to remeasurement over the vesting terms as earned. In July 2016, we modified the terms of 10,365,515 vested and unvested stock option awards by reducing their exercise price to the fair value of our common stock on the date of modification which resulted in an incremental value of $0.4 million being allocated to the options.

We recorded total non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $1.2 million and $1.4 million during 2015 and 2016, respectively. At December 31, 2016, we had $2.9 million of total unrecognized employee stock-based compensation expense, net of estimated forfeitures, related to stock option grants. This amount will be recognized as expense over a weighted-average period of 2.5 years. We expect to continue to grant stock options in the future, and, to the extent that we do, our actual stock-based compensation expense recognized in future periods will likely increase. The stock-based compensation expense that we recognized in 2016 increased, and the stock-based compensation expense that we recognized in the first quarter of 2017 and will recognize in each quarter thereafter through 2019 will increase, as a result of our determination to calculate that expense based on deemed fair values of our common stock that are higher than the exercise prices of certain stock options granted prior to this offering.

The intrinsic value of all outstanding options as of the date of this prospectus was approximately          million based on the assumed initial public offering price of $        per share, which is the midpoint of the price

 

77


Table of Contents

range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, of which approximately $        million related to vested options and approximately $        million related to unvested options.

Determining Fair Value of Stock Options

We determine the fair value of each grant of stock options using the estimated fair value of our common stock and the assumptions set forth below. Each of these inputs is subjective and generally requires significant judgment.

The fair value of employee stock options was estimated using the following assumptions:

 

     Years Ended December 31,    Three Months Ended March 31,
     2015   2016            2016                    2017        

Expected term

   6.25   6.25    6.25    6.25

Expected volatility

   45%-50%   44%-54%    47%    53-55%

Risk-free interest rate

   1.54%-1.88%   1.14%-2.19%    1.40%    1.99-2.28%

Dividend yield

   0%   0%    0%    0%

Our board of directors intends all options granted to be exercisable at a price per share not less than the per share fair value of our common stock underlying those options on the date of grant. The estimated fair value of our common stock was determined at each valuation date in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Aid, Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation. Our board of directors, with the assistance of management, developed these valuations using significant judgment and taking into account numerous factors, including developments at our company, market conditions and contemporaneous independent third-party valuations using the Market Approach. The enterprise values derived from the approaches discussed above were then allocated to each of our classes of stock using the Option Pricing Method, or OPM, the Probability Weighted Expected Return Method, or PWERM, or the Hybrid Method. The allocation of these enterprise values to each part of our capital structure, including our common stock, was done based on the OPM and the Common Stock Equivalent method for the initial public offering scenarios. OPM treats the rights of the holders of preferred and common shares as equivalent to call options on any value of the enterprise above certain break points of value based upon the liquidation preferences of the holders of preferred shares, as well as their rights to participation and conversion. Thus, the estimated value of the common stock can be determined by estimating the value of its portion of each of these call option rights. The OPM backsolve method derives the implied enterprise value of a company from a recent transaction involving the company’s own securities issued on an arms-length basis. Under the PWERM the value is estimated based upon analysis of future values for the enterprise under varying scenarios, probabilities are ascribed to these scenarios based on expected future outcomes. Following the closing of this offering, the fair value of our common stock will be determined based on the closing price of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market.

Preferred Stock Warrant Liability

We have issued freestanding warrants to purchase shares of common and preferred stock in connection with the issuance of various debt facilities and debt instruments. We account for these warrants as a liability in our financial statements because the underlying instrument into which the warrants are exercisable contains deemed liquidation provisions that are outside our control.

The warrants were recorded at fair value using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The warrants are re- measured at each financial reporting period with any changes in fair value being recognized as a component of other income (expense), net in the statements of operations. We will continue to adjust the liability for changes in fair value until the earlier of (i) exercise or expiration of the warrants, or (ii) the closing of an initial public offering, at which time certain preferred stock warrants will be converted into warrants to purchase common stock and the liability will be reclassified to additional paid-in capital, if they qualify for equity classification.

 

78


Table of Contents

Common Stock Warrants

We account for warrants for shares of common stock as equity in accordance with the accounting guidance for derivatives. The accounting guidance provides a scope exception from classifying and measuring as a financial liability a contract that would otherwise meet the definition of a derivative if the contract is both (i) indexed to the entity’s own stock and (ii) classified in the stockholders’ deficit section of the balance sheet. We determined that the warrants for shares of common stock issued in connection with the debt arrangements are required to be classified in equity. We estimate the fair value of our warrants for shares of common stock by using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. Warrants classified as equity are recorded as additional paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheet and no further adjustments to their valuation are made.

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes under the liability method, whereby deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities using the enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to affect taxable income. We assess the likelihood that the resulting deferred tax assets will be realized. A valuation allowance is provided when it is more likely than not that some portion or all of a deferred tax asset will not be realized.

As of December 31, 2016, we had net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $105.0 million and $83.7 million available to reduce future taxable income, if any, for federal and state income tax purposes, respectively. If not utilized, our federal and state net operating loss carryforwards begin to expire in 2029 and 2017, respectively, and valuation allowances have been established, where necessary. We also have research credit carryforwards of approximately $1.7 million and $1.5 million available to reduce future taxable income, if any, for both federal and California state income tax purposes, respectively. The federal credits begin to expire in 2030, and the California credits have no expiration date. Realization of these net operating loss and research credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to reduce future income tax liabilities, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

We did not record a provision or benefit for income taxes during the three months ended March 31, 2016 or 2017. We continue to maintain a full valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets.

We assess all material positions taken in any income tax return, including all significant uncertain positions, in all tax years that are still subject to assessment or challenge by relevant taxing authorities. Assessing an uncertain tax position begins with the initial determination of the positions sustainability and is measured at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement. As of each balance sheet date, unresolved uncertain tax positions must be reassessed, and we will determine whether (i) the factors underlying the sustainability assertion have changed and (ii) the amount of the recognized tax benefit is still appropriate. The recognition and measurement of tax benefits requires significant judgment. Judgments concerning the recognition and measurement of a tax benefit may change as new information becomes available.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 limits the use of net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards in certain situations where changes occur in the stock ownership of a company. We have determined that we have experienced Section 382 ownership changes in 2010 and $1.4 million of our NOL carryforwards are subject to limitation.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

During 2015 and 2016 and for the three months ended March 31, 2017, we did not have any relationships with unconsolidated organizations or financial partnerships, such as structured finance or special purpose entities that would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes.

 

79


Table of Contents

Seasonality

Our business is affected by seasonal variations. For instance, we have historically experienced lower sales in the summer months and higher sales in the last quarter of the fiscal year. However, taken as a whole, seasonality does not have a material impact on our financial results.

Inflation

We believe that inflation has not had a material impact on our consolidated statements of operations for 2015 and 2016 and for the three months ended March 31, 2017. However, there can be no assurance that future inflation will not have an adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial conditions.

JOBS Act Accounting Election

In April 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or JOBS Act, was enacted. Section 107(b) of the JOBS Act provides that an “emerging growth company” can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. Thus, an emerging growth company can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this extended transition period, and, as a result, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for other public companies.

We are in the process of evaluating the benefits of relying on other exemptions and reduced reporting requirements under the JOBS Act. Subject to certain conditions, as an emerging growth company, we may rely on certain of these exemptions, including without limitation, (i) not being required to provide an auditor’s attestation report on our system of internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and (ii) not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the PCAOB regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, known as the auditor discussion and analysis. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (a) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of $1.0 billion or more; (b) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the closing of this offering; (c) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous six years; or (d) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Interest Rate Risk

We are exposed to interest rate risks related to our cash, cash equivalents and borrowings. We had cash and cash equivalents of $27.9 million and $28.7 million as of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, respectively, which consist of bank deposits. Our cash balance consisted of bank deposits and money market funds in 2015 and bank deposits in 2016. Such interest-earning instruments carry a degree of interest rate risk; however, historical fluctuations in interest income have not been significant.

We had outstanding debt of $30.2 million as of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, with interest rates ranging from 11% to 11.75%. As of the date of this prospectus, we have outstanding debt of $30.2 million and we are exposed to interest rate risk in connection with any future borrowings with SVB and Oxford under our term loan, which carries an interest rate equal to the greater of 11% or the WSJ Prime rate plus 7.75%, and our revolving line of credit, which carries an interest rate equal to the WSJ Prime rate plus 3%. For variable rate debt, interest rate changes generally do not affect the fair value of the debt instrument, but do impact future earnings and cash flows, assuming other factors are held constant. In the ordinary course of business, we may enter into contractual arrangements to reduce our exposure to interest rate risks. We do not believe that a 10% change in interest rates would have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.

 

80


Table of Contents

Foreign Currency Exchange Risk

We operate in countries other than the United States, and, therefore, we are exposed to foreign currency risks. Revenue from sales outside of the United States represents approximately 8% of our total revenue. We bill most direct sales outside of the United States in local currencies, which are mostly comprised of the Euro and the British Pound. Operating expenses related to these sales are largely denominated in the same respective currency, thereby limiting our transaction risk exposure. We therefore believe that the risk of a significant impact on our operating income from foreign currency fluctuations is not significant. We do not believe that a 10% change in foreign currency exchange rates would have a significant impact on our net income. We do not currently hedge our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations; however, we may choose to hedge our exposure in the future.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which required an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. ASU 2014-09 will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective. The new standard is effective January 1, 2018 for public companies. Early application is permitted as of January 1, 2017. The standard permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net), which clarifies the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations in ASU 2014-09. In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing, which clarifies certain aspects of identifying performance obligations and licensing implementation guidance. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients, which relates to disclosures of remaining performance obligations, as well as other amendments to guidance on collectability, non-cash consideration and the presentation of sales and other similar taxes collected from customers. These standards have the same effective date and transition date of January 1, 2018. Management continues to assess the new standard, which includes the review of contracts and revenue channels. We expect that, as a result of the adoption of this ASU, the timing of recognizing revenue for implants sold by our direct sales force to over half of the hospitals, may be generally earlier than under the existing revenue recognition guidance. Currently, revenue for these transactions is recognized upon receipt of a purchase order agreement after surgery, when the evidence of arrangement criterion is met. However, under Topic 606, we may be required to recognize revenue upon the delivery of the product on the date of surgery if there is an agreement that creates enforceable rights and obligations. Historically, the time between the surgery and the receipt of the purchase order for these transactions was, on average, six days which represents an immaterial amount of revenue. We continue to evaluate the effects that Topic 606 will have on our financial statements and related disclosures, and preliminary assessments are subject to change.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern, The ASU requires management to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. In doing so, companies will have reduced diversity in the timing and content of footnote disclosures than under today’s guidance. We have adopted ASU 2014-15 as of the year ended December 31, 2016. The adoption of the ASU did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, Inventory (Topic 330): Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory. ASU 2015-11 simplifies the guidance on the subsequent measurement of inventory, excluding inventory measured using last-in, first out or the retail inventory method. Under the new standard, in scope inventory should be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value. We have adopted this new standard for the first quarter of the fiscal year 2017 and the adoption of this guidance does not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

 

81


Table of Contents

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes. ASU 2015-17 specifies that deferred tax assets and liabilities shall be classified as noncurrent, or long-term, in a classified statement of financial position. The ASU is effective for public entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Earlier application is permitted for all entities as of the beginning of an interim or an annual reporting period. We have adopted this new standard for the first quarter of the fiscal year 2017 and the adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued its new lease accounting guidance. Under the new guidance, ASU 2016-02, Leases, lessor accounting is largely unchanged. The new lease guidance simplifies the accounting for sale and leaseback transactions primarily because lessees must recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. Under the new guidance, lessees will be required to recognize a lease liability, which is a lessor’s obligation to make lease payments arising from a lease, measured on a discounted basis; and a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee’s right to use, or control use of, a specified asset for the lease term for all leases (with the exception of short-term leases) at the adoption date. The new guidance is effective for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted for any interim or annual financial statements net yet issued. Lessees (for capital and operating leases) and lessors (for sales-type, direct financing and operating leases) must apply a modified retrospective approach for all leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements. We are currently evaluating the impact of this standard on its consolidated financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, which simplified several aspects of accounting for stock-based compensation transactions. The areas for simplification in this update involve several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The new guidance is effective for public entities in years beginning after December 15, 2016 and in interim periods within those years. Other entities must apply the new guidance in years beginning after December 15, 2017 and in interim periods within years beginning after December 15, 2018. We have adopted this standard in the first quarter of 2017. The adoption did not have a material effect on our financial statements because our deferred tax assets are subject to a full valuation allowance and we will maintain our current forfeiture policy to estimate forfeitures expected to occur to determine stock-based compensation expense.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15 Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230), Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments. ASU 2016-15 provides guidance on the following eight specific cash flow classification issues: (1) debt prepayment or debt extinguishment costs; (2) settlement of zero-coupon debt instruments or other debt instruments with coupon interest rates that are insignificant in relation to the effective interest rate of the borrowing; (3) contingent consideration payments made after a business combination; (4) proceeds from the settlement of insurance claims; (5) proceeds from the settlement of corporate-owned life insurance policies, including bank-owned life insurance policies; (6) distributions received from equity method investees; (7) beneficial interests in securitization transactions; and (8) separately identifiable cash flows and application of the predominance principle. Current GAAP does not include specific guidance on these eight cash flow classification issues. The amendments of this ASU are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting ASU 2014-15 on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

 

82


Table of Contents

BUSINESS

Overview

We are a medical device company that has pioneered a proprietary minimally invasive surgical implant system to fuse the sacroiliac joint for treatment of common types of sacroiliac joint disorders that cause lower back pain. We introduced our iFuse Implant System, or iFuse, in 2009 in the United States and in 2010 in certain countries in the European Union. Since 2009, more than 25,000 iFuse Procedures have been performed by over 1,300 surgeons, primarily in the United States. Based on our commercial experience and our market research, we believe iFuse is currently used in approximately 70% of minimally invasive surgical fusions of the sacroiliac joint in the United States. For the year ended December 31, 2016 and three months ended March 31, 2017, we generated revenue of $42.1 million and $11.4 million, respectively, and our net loss was $20.6 million and $6.6 million, respectively. We expect to continue to incur operating losses in the future.

The two sacroiliac joints connect the sacral bone at the base of the spine with the two iliac bones of the pelvis, and absorb and transmit shock between the legs and the upper body. Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction may experience pain that can be debilitating. We believe that the sacroiliac joint is the last major joint to be addressed by the orthopedic implant industry.

Our iFuse Implants are triangular, and three implants are typically used in each procedure. Our implants are made of titanium and are coated with a porous surface using a titanium plasma spray process. Each iFuse Implant is at least three times the strength of a typical eight millimeter surgical screw and the large porous surface area allows fixation of the bone to the implants.

iFuse is supported by published evidence of safety, clinical effectiveness, durability and reduction in opioid users. These benefits are supported by more than 50 peer reviewed papers, including three prospective multi-center studies, two of which were randomized controlled clinical trials.

 

    INSITE was a randomized controlled study conducted in the United States. Positive 24-month follow-up results were published in August 2016 in the International Journal of Spine Surgery showing statistically significant and clinically important reduction in pain and disability. In April 2015, INSITE was awarded the “Best Overall Paper” out of approximately 450 submitted clinical study papers at the International Society for Advancement of Spine Surgery, or ISASS, conference.

 

    iMIA was a randomized controlled study conducted in Europe. Positive six-month follow-up results were published in European Spine Journal in May 2016, and the 12 follow-up results were accepted in March 2017 for publication in Pain Physician, showing statistically significant and clinically profound reduction in pain and disability.

 

    SIFI was a single-arm study conducted in the United States. Positive 24-month follow-up results were published in the International Journal of Spine Surgery in April 2016, showing substantial and sustained reduction in pain and disability.

A pooled analysis of these three prospective studies was published in March 2017 in SPINE, showing consistent and durable reduction in pain and disability, and improvement in quality of life.

 

    A controlled study that followed patients for up to six years was published in February 2017 in Neurosurgery, showing that at their last follow up visit more than 80% of patients who received non-surgical management were using opioids, while only 7% of patients treated with iFuse were using opioids.

The INSITE clinical trial included 148 subjects treated at 19 centers in the United States, with subjects randomized in a two to one ratio to either immediate sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse or non-surgical management. The study design allowed subjects in the non-surgical management group to cross over and have

 

83


Table of Contents

surgery after six months. By 24 months after the start of the clinical trial, 89% of the non-surgical management group subjects still participating in the trial had elected to cross over to have the iFuse Procedure. The study’s results can be summarized as follows:

 

    Reduction in Pain. There was a statistically significant and clinically important pain reduction in subjects treated with iFuse as compared to those treated with non-surgical management. Subjects surgically treated with iFuse had mean 52, 54 and 55-point reductions in sacroiliac joint pain at 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively, as measured on the 0–100 Visual Analog Scale, or VAS. By contrast, subjects in the non-surgical management group had only a mean 12-point reduction (p<0.0001) at six months. In addition, the non-surgical management group subjects who elected after six months to cross over to have the iFuse Procedure had pain reduction similar to that seen in subjects originally assigned to sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse. At 24 months, the proportion of subjects with a reduction in VAS sacroiliac joint pain of 20 or more points was 83% in the iFuse group and 10% in the non-surgical management group.

 

    Reduction in Disability. There was a statistically significant reduction in disability with iFuse as compared to non-surgical management. Subjects surgically treated with iFuse had a mean 27-point reduction in disability at six months, on the 0–100 Oswestry Disability Index, or ODI, while subjects in the non-surgical management group had only a mean 5-point reduction (p<0.0001). At 24 months, the iFuse group had a mean 28-point reduction in ODI. At six months, the proportion of subjects with ODI improvements of at least 15 points was 72.5% and 13.0% in the iFuse and non-surgical management groups, respectively (p<0.0001). In addition, the subjects who elected after six months to cross over to have the iFuse Procedure had similar reduction in disability as the subjects originally assigned to sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse. At 24 months, the proportion of subjects with an ODI improvement of at least 15 points was 68% and 7.5% in the iFuse and non-surgical management groups, respectively (p<0.0001).

Patients from this study will be followed for up to five years in a separate long-term study.

A published study following patients for up to six years showed that pain relief was maintained for patients treated with iFuse, while patients treated with non-surgical management showed worsening pain over that period. Moreover, the cumulative four-year revision rate with iFuse, an important clinical outcome, is approximately 3.6%, or one-third of the reported revision rate of lumbar, or lower back, fusion.

Market

Over 30 million Americans experience lower back pain at any given time, according to The New England Journal of Medicine. Published clinical studies have shown that 15% to 30% of all lower back pain is associated with the sacroiliac joint. Our experience in both clinical trials and commercial settings indicates that iFuse could be beneficial to at least 30% of patients who visit trained healthcare providers and are screened for exclusion and inclusion criteria. Based on our market experience and internal estimates, we believe that 10% of Americans that experience lower back pain related to the sacroiliac joint are potential candidates for the iFuse Procedure. Accordingly, we estimate that the potential market for iFuse in the United States would be 465,000 patients annually.

Studies have also shown that the disability from disease of the sacroiliac joint is comparable to the disability associated with a number of other serious orthopedic conditions (for example, knee and hip arthritis, narrowing of the spinal canal, or spinal stenosis, and degenerative disc disease), all of which have surgical solutions where an implant is used and a significant market exists. For example, there are a large number of lumbar fusions to treat lower back pain in the United States.

 

84


Table of Contents

Frequently, sacroiliac joint patients are aging and/or may have experienced one or more of the following events that have caused disruption or degeneration of the sacroiliac joint: falls, previous lumbar surgery, automobile accidents, and/or pregnancies. We believe that Americans spend approximately $85.9 billion per year on spine problems and that approximately 65% of people who suffer from sacroiliac pain are women. In the United States, iFuse is intended for sacroiliac joint fusion for conditions including sacroiliac joint dysfunction that is a direct result of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis. This includes conditions whose symptoms began during pregnancy or in the peripartum period and have persisted postpartum for more than six months. In all other countries where iFuse is available commercially, the system is indicated for sacroiliac joint fusion.

Diagnosis

It is often difficult to identify the source of lower back pain. As a result, some surgical procedures performed on the spine have a sub-optimal success rate. For example, published studies of lumbar fusion have shown success rates of only approximately 60%. Unsuccessful spine surgery may result in failed back surgery syndrome, which has been shown to result in high healthcare costs with poor overall relief of pain. We believe low success rates of lumbar fusion are likely related to failure, in some cases, to diagnose the sacroiliac joint as the correct cause of pain.

In addition to training surgeons to perform the iFuse Procedure, we have made considerable investments in teaching healthcare professionals to accurately diagnose sacroiliac joint disorders. We provide instruction and training on how to perform provocative maneuvers in a physician’s office that can reveal the sacroiliac joint as the source of pain. If provocative tests are positive, surgeons confirm the diagnosis by injecting a small amount of local anesthetic into the joint under fluoroscopic guidance. If the local anesthetic produces immediate pain reduction, it confirms that the sacroiliac joint is the source of the pain. In addition to the differentiated characteristics of our iFuse Procedure and implants, we believe that more accurate diagnosis is part of the reason for the high success rate of iFuse. As is customary in the orthopedic implant industry, a member of our team is typically present in the operating suite during surgery to provide technical assistance for the use of iFuse.

Surgical Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Disease

Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction frequently experience significant pain simply from sitting, standing, or rolling over in bed. The pain can be exacerbated with activity—when a patient walks or runs, for example, the shock from each step is transmitted up the leg to the iliac bones of the pelvis. This results in small movements of the sacroiliac joints and pressure transferred across the joints. The initial goal in fusion of the sacroiliac joint is to immediately stabilize the joint because the movement of the damaged or arthritic joint is believed to cause the pain. After the joint has been stabilized, the goal is to permanently fuse the joint over time.

Surgical fusion of the sacroiliac joint with an open surgical technique was first reported in 1908; further reports were described in the 1920s. The open procedure uses plates and screws, is extremely invasive, and involves greater blood loss and longer recovery time when compared to the iFuse minimally invasive procedure. Open surgery for elective sacroiliac joint fusion has become less common in the United States since we introduced iFuse. The table below highlights some of the key differences between the iFuse Procedure and open surgery.

 

     Fusion with Open Surgery      iFuse
Procedure
 

Size of incision

     6 to 12 inches        1 to 2 inches  

Average hospital stay

     5.1 nights        1.3 nights  

Average blood loss

     800 ml        33 ml  

Due to its invasiveness, pain, long recovery time, and infrequent use, the open fusion procedure was rarely taught in medical school or residency programs. Prior to our launch of iFuse, most spine surgeons had never performed a sacroiliac joint fusion. As a result, when patients presented with lower back pain, spine surgeons often did not include a sacroiliac joint evaluation in their diagnostic work-up.

 

85


Table of Contents

Non-Surgical Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Disease

Although a number of non-surgical treatments exist for sacroiliac joint pain, they did not provide the level of pain or disability relief seen with the iFuse Procedure for the patients participating in the INSITE study.

 

    Medical therapy, including opiates and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications.

 

    Physical Therapy, which can involve exercises as well as massage.

 

    Intra-articular injections of steroid medications, which are typically performed by physicians who specialize in pain treatment or anesthesia.

 

    Radiofrequency ablation, or the cauterizing, of the lateral branches of the sacral nerve roots.

Our Solution—iFuse

Our iFuse system is designed to address the shortcomings of alternative treatments, including open surgery, non-surgical management, and screw-based procedures. As shown in the graphic below, our iFuse Implants are triangular, and three implants are typically used in each procedure. Our implants are made of titanium and are coated with a porous surface using a titanium plasma spray process. Each iFuse Implant is at least three times the strength of a typical eight millimeter surgical screw and the large porous surface area allows fixation of the bone to the implants.

 

 

LOGO

The iFuse Procedure is performed under general anesthesia and involves an incision approximately one to two inches in length. The surgeon uses a custom instrument set we provide to prepare a triangular channel across the sacroiliac joint for each implant. An iFuse Implant is then pressed into a triangular channel, which is slightly smaller than the implant, creating what is known as an intereference fit. The triangular shape of our iFuse Implants, as shown above, prevents them from rotating. Our iFuse Implants have more than 30 times the rotation resistance of screws based on a study we sponsored. iFuse Implants cross the sacroiliac joint and provide stability, which is why we believe pain diminishes soon after the iFuse Procedure. We have issued patents on implants with cross-sections of different shapes, including the triangular shape we use for iFuse. We also have issued patents for the method of placing those implants for applications across the sacroiliac joint, as well as other parts of the spine and pelvis.

By contrast, open fusion of the sacroiliac joint, as well as the minimally invasive solutions offered by other companies typically use screws and/or plates for fixation. When placed across the sacroiliac joint, standard orthopedic screws, with no features to encourage biologic fixation, have an exhibited propensity to rotate and loosen over time. Because of the triangular shape, porous coating, strength, and other differentiating factors of our iFuse Implants, we believe that our published clinical data does not apply to other minimally invasive solutions, for which little published evidence of safety, clinical effectiveness, durability, or economic utility currently exists. We are unaware of any data to show that our competitors’ sacroiliac joint screws, with features allowing biologic fixation, have a lower rate of loosening than standard orthopedic screws. In addition, placement of plates for open fusion procedures typically requires larger incisions and more invasive dissection, which results in longer recovery times and increased morbidity.

 

86


Table of Contents

Surgical revision is an important outcome for patients. A recent single site retrospective study published in the International Journal of Spine Surgery showed a cumulative revision rate of more than 30% at four years for screw-based treatment of sacroiliac joint pain (based on 38 cases) and a revision rate of less than 6% for iFuse (based on 274 cases). Based on an extensive review of the published medical literature before that study, private payors HCSC, Geisinger and SelectHealth Medical Technology Assessment Committees determined that coverage of minimally invasive (MIS) sacroiliac joint fusion specific to iFuse was appropriate as the literature related to other MIS sacroiliac joint fusion systems was inadequate to determine safety and effectiveness. Use of all other technologies is considered experimental/investigational or unproven and therefore not covered.

Our implants cross the sacroiliac joint and provide stability, which is why we believe pain diminishes soon after the iFuse Procedure. Typically, surgeons recommend protected weight-bearing for three weeks. However, post-operative instructions are patient-specific and some patients are allowed to perform weight-bearing activities sooner. Follow-up studies have shown that bony bridging across the sacroiliac joint is still present five years after the iFuse Procedure.

Three implants are used in most iFuse Procedures. Each implant bridges across the joint from the iliac bone to the sacrum. Placing each implant requires four basic steps:

 

    Pin. The surgeon inserts a guide pin through the iliac bone, across the sacroiliac joint and into the sacrum.

 

    Drill. Surgeons drill over the guide pin, through the iliac bone, across the sacroiliac joint and just into the sacrum. This step is optional if using the sharp-tip broach.

 

    Broach. The surgeon impacts a triangular broach over the pin which prepares a triangular channel that is slightly smaller than the iFuse Implant.

 

    Implant. The surgeon impacts the implant into the triangular channel thereby spanning the sacroiliac joint and docking in the sacrum. The channel is slightly smaller than the implant, which produces an interference fit.

iFuse is a cannulated system, which means that the drill, broach and implants have hollow channels which fit over the pin for guidance purposes. As is typical across the orthopedic implant industry, a member of our team is normally present in the operating suite during surgery to provide technical assistance for the use of iFuse.

We currently offer three custom instrument sets for placement of iFuse Implants in the body. The standard set is comprised of largely stainless steel materials; the XL (Extra Long) set is the same as the standard set but most instruments are elongated by three inches for treatment of larger patients; and the radiolucent set is comprised of instruments made with more radiolucent materials, such as PEEK and aluminum to improve visualization under fluoroscopy during an iFuse Procedure.

Our Strategy

Our objective is to maintain and enhance our leadership position in providing clinically proven products and training for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion and provide relief for as many patients as possible. To accomplish this objective, we intend to:

 

    Continue to educate physicians, payors, and patients globally about the growing body of compelling evidence supporting the safety, clinical effectiveness, durability and reduction in opioid use associated with the iFuse Procedure;

 

    Increase reimbursement coverage based on our evidence of safety, clinical effectiveness, durability and reduction in opioid use;

 

    Continue to invest in iFuse awareness, surgeon training, new products, and additional clinical and economic studies;

 

87


Table of Contents
    Educate and train the healthcare community on the prevalence, anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment options, including minimally invasive surgical fusion of the sacroiliac joint;

 

    Expand our direct field organization in the United States and select European countries to drive adoption of our iFuse products;

 

    Maintain our technological leadership by investing in the creation of new or improved products for sacroiliac joint surgery and obtain domestic and international regulatory clearance to market them in the United States and additional countries; and

 

    Continue to grow and defend our existing intellectual property portfolio.

Our Published Studies

iFuse is the only minimally invasive product for sacroiliac joint fusion commercially available in the United States that, to our knowledge, is supported by published evidence of safety, clinical effectiveness, durability, and economic utility. These benefits are supported by more than 50 published papers (22 of which we financially supported), including a prospective, randomized controlled multi-center clinical trial referred to as “INSITE” and a prospective multi-center clinical study referred to as “SIFI.” INSITE six-month follow-up results were published in March 2015 in the International Journal of Spine Surgery, and 12-month follow-up results have been accepted for publication by Neurosurgery. SIFI six-month follow-up results were published in Medical Devices—Evidence and Research in December 2013, and 12-month follow-up results were published in August 2015 in the Global Spine Journal. These results demonstrate clinically important and statistically significant improvement for sacroiliac joint pain, disability due to lower back pain, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Moreover, the level of published evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of sacroiliac joint fusion using iFuse is high. The INSITE study was awarded the Leon L. Wiltse Award for Best Overall Paper (out of approximately 450 submitted abstracts) by the ISASS meeting program committee.

In the United States, iFuse is intended for sacroiliac joint fusion for conditions including sacroiliac joint dysfunction that is a direct result of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis. This includes conditions whose symptoms began during pregnancy or in the peripartum period and have persisted postpartum for more than six months. Clinical Studies have demonstrated that treatment with iFuse improved pain, patient function, and quality of life. In all other countries where iFuse is available commercially, the system is indicated for sacroiliac joint fusion. The published studies summarized below include clinical outcome information. We have not yet cleared claims for use of iFuse to reduce pain, reduce disability, improve quality of life, or other clinical outcome claims without reference to published papers. We financially supported the studies described below.

INSITE Study Design

INSITE enrollment took place between January 2013 and May 2014 at 19 sites in the United States. Adults between 21 and 70 years old were eligible to participate if they had a confirmed diagnosis of sacroiliac dysfunction due to degenerative sacroiliitis and/or sacroiliac joint disruption. Diagnosis was based on the subject’s history, provocative tests performed in the surgeon’s office, and at least a 50% decrease in sacroiliac joint pain 30 to 60 minutes after local anesthetic was injected into the joint under image guidance. Eligibility required a sacroiliac VAS pain score of at least 50, where zero represents no pain and 100 represents the worst pain imaginable, as well as a baseline ODI score of at least 30, which has a scale of 0-100, where zero represents no disability and scores greater than 60 represent very severe disability.

Exclusion criteria included inability to diagnose pain related to the sacroiliac joint, sacroiliac joint pain due to inflammatory conditions, severe back pain deemed to be due primarily to other causes, history of recent major trauma to the pelvis, metabolic bone disease, or any condition that made treatment with the study devices infeasible or interfered with the ability to participate in physical therapy. Subjects involved in litigation, on

 

88


Table of Contents

disability leave, or receiving workers’ compensation related to their back or sacroiliac joint pain were also excluded. Subjects were randomly assigned to sacroiliac joint fusion or non-surgical management in a two to one ratio. After six months of follow-up, subjects could elect to receive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery using iFuse. All of the subjects who were randomized to non-surgical management completed at least six months of follow up before electing to cross over to surgery.

Subjects assigned to non-surgical management began non-surgical management immediately. Non-surgical management consisted of four components: 1) management of pain with medication, including narcotics; 2) physical therapy; 3) steroid injections in the sacroiliac joint; and 4) radiofrequency ablation of local nerves. Physical therapy followed American Physical Therapy Association, or APTA, guidelines. Not all non-surgical management interventions were provided to all non-surgical management subjects. Non-surgical management interventions were provided serially, typically in order of increasing invasiveness, according to individual needs.

Baseline assessments included medical history and physical examination. Subjects were scheduled for follow-up at one, three, six, 12, 18, and 24 months after enrollment. At each follow-up, the subjects evaluated their pain and disability by completing questionnaires to assess pain and disability.

A high-resolution pelvic CT scan was performed at the 24-month follow up for those subjects randomized to and treated with iFuse. The primary purpose of the CT scan is to judge the adherence of bone onto the implants on both the sacral and iliac sides of the sacroiliac joint and to determine whether there is bone bridging across the joint. Other radiographic endpoints were assessed as well.

The study required that subjects receive only the assigned treatment to month six. After six months, the study allowed subjects assigned to non-surgical treatment to cross over to surgery. Cross over was allowed because the anticipated success rate for non-surgical management was low, and many subjects would not have participated without the ability to cross over to surgical care within the study. One-hundred percent of subjects who crossed over to iFuse in the study did so after their six-month visit was complete in compliance with the design of the study. Nearly 90% of non-surgical management subjects still participating at month 6 crossed over to surgical care after six months. All subjects who crossed over had sacroiliac joint fusion using iFuse and were subsequently evaluated with follow-up visits.

The primary endpoint was a composite success or failure endpoint. Success was defined as reduction from baseline VAS sacroiliac joint pain by at least 20 points, absence of device-related serious adverse events, absence of neurological worsening related to the sacral spine, and absence of surgical re-intervention (removal, revision, reoperation, or supplemental fixation) for sacroiliac joint pain. Secondary endpoints included improvement from baseline in VAS, ODI, as well as treatment satisfaction and other criteria. Other important measures included quality of life assessments.

In the study, 442 subjects at 19 centers were screened for participation, of which 148 were enrolled and treated. Mean subject age was 51 years and 18 (12%) were 65 years of age or older. Most subjects (94.6%) were Caucasian and approximately two-thirds were female.

Enrolled subjects were highly debilitated by sacroiliac joint pain as indicated by high baseline VAS scores (mean 82.3) and ODI scores (mean 56.8). Nineteen percent were not working due to chronic pain. The duration of pain prior to enrollment averaged 6.4 years (range 0.5 to 40.7 years), and 87.2% had had pain for more than one year and 73.6% had pain for more than two years.

Trial subjects had previously undergone sacroiliac-specific physical therapy (72.3% of subjects), sacroiliac steroid injections (85.8%) and radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint (16.2%). Approximately two-thirds were taking opioid pain medications at baseline and all reported that multiple activities commonly caused or worsened their sacroiliac joint pain.

 

89


Table of Contents

Follow-up was excellent with 96% of non-surgical subjects having 6-month follow-up and 87% of sacroiliac joint fusion patients having 24-month follow-up.

All subjects assigned to sacroiliac joint fusion underwent the procedure. Of the subjects assigned to surgery, 76 had the iFuse Procedure on one sacroiliac joint, while 26 underwent the procedure on both sacroiliac joints. Mean procedure time was 45 minutes (range 14 to 140 minutes). Mean estimated blood loss was 33 ml (range 0.5 to 250 ml). Three implants were used in 91.2% of cases and most implants were seven millimeters in diameter. The hospital length of stay ranged from zero to seven days, and 97.1% were discharged in two days or less.

Of the 46 subjects assigned to non-surgical management:

 

    All but one received physical therapy during the six months after treatment assignment;

 

    73.9% underwent at least one steroid injection;

 

    45.7% underwent radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint; and

 

    87.0% underwent at least two types of non-surgical management treatments in addition to pain medications.

The above data suggests that the intensity of non-surgical management interventions was high and representative of that provided in standard clinical practice.

 

90


Table of Contents

INSITE Results

INSITE results can be summarized as follows.

 

    Reduction in Pain. There was a statistically significant and clinically important pain reduction in subjects treated with iFuse as compared to non-surgical management. As shown in the graph below, subjects surgically treated with iFuse had a mean 52-point VAS reduction in sacroiliac joint pain at six months. The reduction in pain was sustained with a mean 55-point reduction in sacroiliac joint pain observed at 24 months. By contrast, subjects in the non-surgical management group had only a mean 12-point reduction (p<0.0001) at six months. In addition, the non-surgical management group subjects who elected after six months to cross over to have the iFuse Procedure had pain reduction similar to that seen in subjects originally assigned to sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse. At 24 months, the proportion of subjects with a reduction in VAS sacroiliac joint pain of 20 or more points was 83% in the iFuse group and 10% in the non-surgical management group.

 

 

LOGO

Subjects who elected not to cross over to surgery had reduced pain at six months, but their pain worsened somewhat over time. In contrast, the non-surgical management group subjects who elected to cross over to have the iFuse Procedure had pain reduction similar to that seen in subjects originally assigned to sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse. These clinically important differences show the effectiveness of sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse.

 

   

Reduction in Disability. There was a statistically significant reduction in disability with iFuse as compared to non-surgical management. As shown in the graph below, subjects surgically treated with iFuse had a mean 27-point ODI reduction in disability at six months, while subjects in the non-surgical management group had only a mean 4.6-point decrease (p<0.0001). At 24 months, the iFuse group had a mean 28-point reduction in disability. At six months, the proportion of subjects with ODI improvements of at least 15 points was 72.5% and 13.0% in the iFuse and non-surgical

 

91


Table of Contents
 

management groups, respectively. At 24 months, the proportion of subjects with an improvement of at least 15 points due to the assigned treatment was 68.2% and 7.5% in the iFuse and non-surgical management groups, respectively (p<0.0001).

As shown in the figure below, the subjects who elected after six months to cross over to have the iFuse Procedure had similar reduction in disability as the subjects originally assigned to sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse. These clinically important differences show the effectiveness of sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse.

 

 

LOGO

Patient Satisfaction

Patient satisfaction was assessed by asking subjects whether they were very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the treatment received. At six months, 77.2% of subjects who had received the iFuse Procedure were very satisfied, compared with 27.3% of subjects in the non-surgical management group. At six months, 79.2% of surgery subjects said they would definitely have the procedure again. These results are consistent with the satisfaction results from other studies, covering approximately 500 subjects. Satisfaction rates were high, with 73% reporting being very satisfied with sacroiliac joint treatment by month 24 and 71% indicated they would have the procedure again.

 

92


Table of Contents

Adverse Events

During the first six months, the mean number of adverse events per subject was slightly higher in the surgery group (1.3 events) as compared to the non-surgical management group (1.1 events, p=0.3063). The most common adverse event related to our implant was leg pain resulting from misplacement of the implant, resulting in impingement of the implant on a lumbar spine nerve root. The most common adverse event for our implant procedure has been minor wound infections. None of these adverse events required surgical treatment. The following table shows the number and percentages of subjects who had adverse events related to the iFuse device and the iFuse Procedure.

 

     Non-Surgical
Management
(n=46)
    Sacroiliac
Joint Fusion
(n=102)
 
     N (%*)     N (%)  

Category

    

Related to iFuse Implant

    

Definitely related

           2 (2.0 %) 

Probably related

           1 (1.0 %) 

Total

           3 (2.9 %) 

Related to non-surgical management or iFuse Procedure**

     3 (6.5 %)      6 (5.9 %) 

Definitely related

     1 (2.2 %)      10 (9.8 %) 

Probably related

     4 (8.7 %)      16 (15.7 %) 

Total

    

 

* Percent reported as number of events divided by number assigned to treatment.
** Events from first 180 days shown.

In summary, we believe the INSITE study, a prospective, randomized controlled multi-center clinical trial, provided substantial evidence of the clinically important and statistically significant effectiveness of sacroiliac joint fusion using iFuse compared with non-surgical management. Further, the fact that subjects who crossed over responded, as well as those who were originally assigned to the iFuse group, adds significantly to the trial’s validity and importance.

iMIA European Clinical Trial

iMIA is a second prospective, randomized clinical trial of sacroiliac joint fusion using iFuse compared to non-surgical management with a design very similar to that of INSITE. iMIA enrolled and treated 103 subjects at nine sites in four European countries. The trial’s six-month results were published in European Spine Journal in May 2016.

In iMIA, 103 adults with chronic sacroiliac joint pain at nine sites in four European countries were randomly assigned approximately one-to-one to either immediate sacroiliac joint fusion with iFuse or conservative management. Conservative management was performed according to the European guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pelvic girdle pain and consisted of optimization of medical therapy, individualized physical therapy and adequate information and reassurance as part of a multifactorial treatment.

At twelve months, which is as far out as data is currently available, mean low back pain improved by 41.6 points in the surgically treated group and 14.0 points in the conservative management group (difference of 27.6 points, p<0.0001). Mean ODI improved by 25.0 points in the surgical group and 8.7 points in the conservative management group (p<0.0001).

Adverse events occurred at a low rate and the frequency of adverse events did not differ between groups. One case of postoperative nerve impingement occurred in the surgical group, which was resolved by repositioning the implant.

 

93


Table of Contents

The figure below shows mean VAS pain scores at baseline and throughout follow-up. The results show clinically profound, rapid and sustained reduction in pain following treatment with iFuse, in contrast with conservative management.

 

 

LOGO

 

94


Table of Contents

The figure below shows mean ODI scores at baseline and throughout follow-up. The results shows clinically profound, rapid and sustained reduction in disability following treatment with iFuse, in contrast with conservative management.

 

 

LOGO

SIFI Clinical Trial

Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with iFuse Implant System, or SIFI, was a prospective, multicenter single-arm clinical trial. Eligibility criteria and endpoints were similar to INSITE. A manuscript summarizing two-year results was published in International Journal of Spine Surgery in April 2016.

All of the 172 enrolled subjects received the iFuse Procedure at 26 sites between August 2012 and December 2013. All enrolled subjects were included in statistical analysis. Mean subject age was 51 years and 96.5% subjects were Caucasian and approximately 70% were female. Follow-up rates at month 6, 12 and 24 were 97%, 91% and 87%, respectively.

Baseline sacroiliac pain and disability scores were high. The mean baseline VAS score was 79.8, while the mean baseline ODI score was 55.2. The mean duration of pain prior to enrollment was five years (range 0.4 to 41 years), and 84.3% had had pain for more than one year and 64.5% had had pain for more than two years.

Seventy-six percent were taking opioid pain medications at baseline and all reported that multiple activities commonly caused their sacroiliac joint pain. Many subjects (44.2%) had a history of prior lumbar fusion, and concomitant spine disease was common. Sacroiliac joint pain persisted despite prior treatments with physical therapy (64.5% of subjects), sacroiliac joint steroid injections (94.2%) and prior radiofrequency ablation of the joint (15.7%).

Hospital length of stay ranged from zero to seven days, and 95.3% were discharged in two days or less. Prolonged hospital stays were related to subject comorbidities, not procedure-related adverse events.

 

95


Table of Contents

The figure below shows mean VAS pain scores at baseline and throughout follow-up. The results show clinically important, rapid and sustained reduction in pain across the subject population.

 

 

LOGO

 

96


Table of Contents

The figure below shows the ODI scores at baseline and throughout the study. The results show clinically important and sustained reduction in disability across the subject population.

 

 

LOGO

Satisfaction rates were high, with 78.1% reporting being very satisfied with sacroiliac joint treatment by month 24 and 93.8% being very or somewhat satisfied. 74.7% indicated they would definitely have the procedure again; 88.4% indicated they would probably or definitely have the procedure again.

Four adverse events (2.4% of all subjects) were rated by the investigator to be definitely device-related and 3 (1.8%) were probably device-related. Pain related to implant impingement on sacral nerve roots occurred in 3 cases (including one non-study-related side), all of which resolved with immediate repositioning of implants. In 4 cases, sacroiliac joint or hip pain was attributed to the presence were an implant or bone growth around the implant. Twenty-six events were rated as probably or definitely related to the placement procedure. The most common events were wound infection, irritation or drainage, sacroiliac joint pain related to implant malposition (described above), and recurrent sacroiliac joint pain related to inadequate device placement. One subject had a deep wound infection that required surgical debridement.

Additional Published Clinical Studies

We have demonstrated the long-term durability of pain relief resulting from treatment with iFuse in several other published studies. A study published in the Open Orthopedics Journal in 2014, which we financially supported, showed that significant clinical pain relief observed at 12 months was maintained for five years. Similar results with four and one-half year follow-up were published in the Journal of Spine in 2014.

 

97


Table of Contents

Of more than 500 patients treated with iFuse in ten studies we have sponsored or followed in which satisfaction was measured, 91% were satisfied or very satisfied with the result. All of the iFuse studies published as of April 2017 report sacroiliac joint pain using the VAS pain scale are in the graph below. We financially supported nine of these thirteen clinical studies.

 

LOGO

To date, several studies, some not sponsored by SI-BONE, have been published on the safety and effectiveness of sacroiliac joint fusion using iFuse. These are prospective or retrospective, single site or multi-site, and U.S.- or Europe-based. These clinical studies demonstrate the iFuse Procedure to be safe and effective. These studies demonstrate pain reduction and/or ODI improvement that is statistically significant and clinically important. The type and rate of reported adverse events were similar to those reported in INSITE and SIFI. These additional studies are consistent with the results of INSITE and SIFI.

A study published in April 2017 in Neurosurgery shows the impact of non-coverage by the healthcare system of sacroiliac joint fusion. In this study, a neurosurgeon reports the clinical experience of 423 patients seen in his clinic for sacroiliac joint pain. While many patients’ pain resolved without intervention, 152 of the patients (36%) had continued sacroiliac joint pain. Of these patients, 74 did not have access to the procedure due to their insurers’ denial of coverage and instead were forced to undergo continued non-surgical treatment. Of the remaining 78 patients, 51 underwent radiofrequency ablation of lateral branches of sacral nerve roots and 27 underwent sacroiliac joint fusion with the iFuse Implant System.

 

98


Table of Contents

The group treated non-surgically had poor outcomes, including increased pain, disability and opioid use, as well as worsened work status. By contrast, patients who were able to undergo the iFuse Procedure had very large improvements in pain and disability, improved work status and substantially decreased opioid use (from 63% at baseline to 7% at last follow-up). The differences in all outcomes (pain, disability, work status and opioid use) were both statistically significant and clinically profound. The graph below shows the pain scores of the three treatment cohorts followed in this study.

 

LOGO

There are several important aspects to this study:

 

    It can be considered a “pseudorandomized trial” in that insurance denials (which dictated which treatment the patient could receive) was not clearly related to any important predictor of clinical outcomes. This enhances the comparability of groups.

 

    It is the longest reported cohort of non-surgical treatment of sacroiliac joint pain published to date.

 

    Non-surgical treatment was clearly associated with poor outcomes, consistent with our experience in the US, in which patients receive repeated, and sometimes expensive, non-surgical treatments but do not derive significant benefit.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States, the primary purchasers of iFuse products are inpatient and outpatient healthcare facilities. These purchasers bill various third-party payors such as Medicare, Medicaid, private commercial insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, accountable care organizations, or ACOs, and other healthcare-related organizations, to cover all or a portion of the costs and fees associated with iFuse, and bill patients for any applicable deductibles or co-payments.

Medicare reimbursement rates for the iFuse Procedure vary due to geographic location, the nature of facility in which the procedure is performed and other factors. Although private payor coverage policies and reimbursement rates tend to vary, the Medicare program is commonly used as a model for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for healthcare items and services, including iFuse Procedures.

In the United States, the American Medical Association, or AMA, generally assigns specific billing codes for surgical procedures under a coding system known as Current Procedure Terminology, or CPT, which we and our customers must use to bill and receive reimbursement for our iFuse Procedure. Once the CPT code is

 

99


Table of Contents

established, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, establishes payment levels and coverage rules under Medicare while private payors establish rates and coverage rules independently.

Prior to our launch of iFuse, Medicare and most private insurance companies reimbursed surgeons for sacroiliac joint fusions using either an established Category I CPT code or an unlisted code. A Category I CPT code is typically assigned to procedures that are consistent with contemporary medical practice and are widely performed. Procedures with a longstanding Category I CPT code are usually reimbursed.

However, effective July 1, 2013, the AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel created a new Category III CPT code for fusion of the sacroiliac joint using a minimally invasive or percutaneous approach. Category III CPT codes are used for new and emerging technologies and are reimbursed sporadically. This new code functionally redefined coding for sacroiliac joint fusions because it meant that minimally invasive or percutaneous fusion procedures should not be billed using the general Category I CPT code for sacroiliac fusion surgery. This coding change was accompanied by the establishment of a Medicare hospital outpatient prospective payment rate for the new code.

Following the creation of the new Category III CPT code, a number of papers demonstrating the clinical success of the iFuse Procedure were published. These studies, along with the support of several professional societies and surgeons resulted in the AMA CPT Editorial Panel establishing a new Category I CPT code specifically for sacroiliac joint fusion surgery using a minimally invasive or percutaneous approach. This new Category I CPT code became effective on January 1, 2015.

Subsequently, in March 2015, our INSITE prospective, randomized controlled multi-center clinical trial was published. In June 2015, the largest spine society in the world, the North American Spine Society, or NASS, published a positive coverage recommendation, based on the clinical evidence, advocating to insurance companies and Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs, that sacroiliac joint fusion using a minimally invasive surgical approach should be routinely reimbursed. In March 2015, the International Society For Advancement of Spine Surgery, or ISASS, also published a similar positive advocacy document intended to encourage insurance companies in the United States to reimburse for the procedure.

Coverage decisions for this code are made independently by each of the private insurance companies and the eight MACs, and the process of obtaining coverage is laborious. As of June 30, 2016, because of the iFuse clinical evidence, all eight MACs were covering the procedure. As of March 31, 2017, Medicaid programs in 44 states were covering the iFuse Procedure. As of May 2017, eight of the largest 50 private payors were covering the iFuse Procedure regularly, while the vast majority of private payors were evaluating their coverage policies. In addition, because of the iFuse clinical evidence, the private payors, HCSC, Geisinger and SelectHealth, have issued positive coverage policies for iFuse while specifically excluding coverage for any competitive products. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2016, the increasing coverage, combined with our sales and marketing efforts, has led to an increase in the number of procedures and a return to revenue growth.

Outside the United States, reimbursement levels vary significantly by country, and by region within some countries. Reimbursement is obtained from a variety of sources, including government-sponsored and private health insurance plans, and combinations of both. Some countries will require us to gather additional clinical data before recognizing and granting broader coverage and reimbursement for our products. It is our intent to complete the requisite clinical studies and obtain coverage and reimbursement approval beyond what we have today in countries where it makes economic sense to do so.

Third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for medical device products and services exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for medical device products and services can differ significantly from payor to payor. In addition, payors continually review new technologies for possible coverage and can, without notice, deny coverage for these new products and procedures. As a result, the coverage determination process is

 

100


Table of Contents

often a time-consuming and costly process that requires us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained, or maintained if obtained.

In addition to uncertainties surrounding coverage policies, there are periodic changes to reimbursement. Third-party payors regularly update reimbursement amounts and also from time to time revise the methodologies used to determine reimbursement amounts. This includes annual updates to payments to physicians, hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers for procedures during which our products are used. An example of payment updates is the Medicare program’s updates to hospital and physician payments, which are done on an annual basis using a prescribed statutory formula.

Private Payors. Private payors also decide whether to cover and how much to pay on an individual basis. We target and track 50 of the largest private payors that cover over 200 million lives in the United States as of December 31, 2016. As of March 2017, eight large private payors are covering the procedure regularly on a case-by-case basis or have issued formal positive written coverage policies, while 42 do not cover the procedure. In most cases, the payors who are not covering are re-evaluating coverage based on the new Category I CPT code, the INSITE study and other clinical evidence, and the recommendations of NASS and ISASS. Many payors will only review their coverage policies for a particular procedure on a scheduled basis, which can be every few months or as infrequently as once per year.

The table below shows the ten largest private payors in the United States, their approximate number of covered lives as of December 31, 2016, and their status regarding reimbursement coverage as of December 31, 2016:

 

Rank

  

Health Plan

   Enrollment   

Coverage Status

1    United Healthcare    48 million    Case-by-case coverage
2    Anthem (WellPoint)    34 million    Non-coverage
3    Aetna    20 million    Non-coverage
4    Health Care Service Corporation    15 million    Positive coverage**
5    Cigna    14 million    Non-coverage
6    Humana    10 million    Non-coverage
7    Kaiser    10 million    Case-by-case coverage*
8    Health Net    6 million    Non-coverage
9    Independence BC    6 million    Non-coverage
10    Highmark BCBS    5 million    Non-coverage

 

* For plans representing approximately 8 million covered lives.
** Effective January 1, 2017, HCSC began covering minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using iFuse exclusively.

While we believe the increased coverage described above will have a positive effect on the number of iFuse Procedures and our associated revenue in the future, the effect likely will happen with a lag time: after a positive coverage decision is made, a number of months may pass before it impacts the number of procedures and associated revenue, since the surgeons have to be made aware of the coverage decision, schedule re-examinations of patients who were candidates for surgery and subsequently schedule surgeries for the patients who are still candidates.

In addition to clinical evidence, a number of economic publications we financially supported, including those in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research, demonstrate that iFuse provides a cost savings to the healthcare system for non-surgical management over time. One of these studies used data from INSITE to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the iFuse Procedure and found it to be similar to that of hip and knee arthroplasty. The two latter procedures are generally accepted as being safe, effective and highly cost-effective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio, or ICER, of a procedure or therapy is a common way of

 

101


Table of Contents

quantifying its cost-effectiveness. Therapies with ICERs below $50,000 are considered cost-effective and generally gain acceptance. For example, studies have shown that the ICER of total joint replacement surgery for knees is approximately $12,000 and that for hip replacements is approximately $10,000. One study showed the ICER of the iFuse procedure to be $13,000, nearly as cost effective as knee and hip surgeries, which are both common and well-accepted procedures.

A second study detailed a health economics model examining the cost impact of failing to consider the sacroiliac joint in the diagnosis of patients with low back pain in patients seeking surgery. Taking into account both the prevalence of sacroiliac joint dysfunction and the costs of diagnostic workup and surgical treatment, if a surgeon evaluating a patient with chronic low back pain fails to consider the sacroiliac joint, on average $3,100 more healthcare expenditures will ensue. The study concluded that taking the sacroiliac joint into account can save healthcare systems substantial amounts due primarily to reduction in misdiagnosis and its attendant costs. A third study used data from our two prospective trials conducted in the United States to examine the impact of sacroiliac joint fusion on worker productivity. Results suggest that sacroiliac joint fusion can increase the productivity of affected workers by an average of $6,900 compared to continued non-surgical care.

Many payors rely on assessments of new medical technologies and procedures by specialized third party review organizations to guide their coverage decisions. In May 2016, the ECRI Institute Health Technology Assessment Information Service published a positive review of the iFuse Implant System, citing our clinical evidence. In April 2017, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, published guidance on minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion, recommending that the procedure be available to properly diagnosed patients in the U.K. National Health System. NICE develops guidance and quality standards in health and social care and is a worldwide leader in technology evaluations. The recommendation states that the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery is adequate provided that standard arrangements are in place. Use with standard arrangements is the most positive recommendation that NICE can make for an interventional procedure such as MIS SI joint fusion. Two review organizations, Hayes, Inc. and Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Evidence Street, still consider minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery experimental and have so far not published positive assessments of the procedure or iFuse technology.

Medical Affairs and Education

We have created a medical affairs team that focuses both internally and externally. Internally, specialized medical knowledge, and practical experience with iFuse are used to help train our sales, marketing, quality, reimbursement, clinical, regulatory, engineering, and product development teams. This same specialized medical knowledge and practical experience allow us to create and execute a wide variety of programs to train the relevant external medical community, to assist them in identifying and diagnosing patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction and to perform the iFuse Procedure. The medical affairs team is led by a board certified fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgeon. As of March 31, 2017, our faculty consisted of 48 surgeons, 15 pain management physicians, seven nurse practitioners/physician’s assistants, and 63 physical therapists. These third- party consultants educate surgeons, physician’s assistants, nurses, physical therapists, and other healthcare professionals regarding sacroiliac joint diagnosis and the iFuse Procedure.

Our surgeon training programs are for orthopedic spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, general orthopedic surgeons, and orthopedic trauma surgeons. Since its introduction, approximately 1,300 surgeons have treated patients with iFuse. We also have a large number of educational programs for the broader medical community including primary care physicians and other healthcare practitioners that may manage a sacroiliac joint patient non-surgically, such as physical therapists, pain management physicians, and chiropractors. We work to educate case managers, facilities where the iFuse Procedure is performed such as hospitals, as well as payors and health plans. For example, as of March 31, 2017, we have trained over 830 case managers across the United States. Case managers help patients navigate the healthcare system so that they receive the appropriate treatment. In addition to the continuing education program for case managers, we have created continuing education programs for physical therapists and chiropractors. As of March 31, 2017, our physical therapy continuing education programs were approved in 45 states. These programs include instruction on the diagnosis and non-surgical

 

102


Table of Contents

treatment of sacroiliac joint dysfunction due to degenerative sacroiliitis and sacroiliac joint disruptions. Our medical affairs programs focus on working with leading spine surgeons to educate other surgeons on the differential diagnosis of sacroiliac joint disorders and the use of iFuse. We also work closely with medical societies to raise the awareness of and the appropriate diagnosis of sacroiliac joint dysfunction and the associated treatment options.

Sales and Marketing

We market and sell iFuse primarily through a direct sales force and a small number of third-party distributors. Our target customer base includes approximately 7,500 surgeons who perform spine and/or pelvic surgery, including orthopedic spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, general orthopedic surgeons, and orthopedic trauma surgeons.

Our direct sales organization in the United States is comprised of eight sales regions. Each region is comprised of a number of territory sales managers who act as the primary customer contact. Our territory sales managers have extensive training and experience selling medical devices for spine problems and pain management, generally focusing on emerging technologies and markets. As of March 31, 2017, our territory sales managers were led by seven regional sales managers who reported to our Senior Director of U.S. Sales. The Senior Director of U.S. Sales reports to our Chief Commercial Officer. As of March 31, 2017, our U.S. sales force consisted of 48 sales representatives directly employed by us and 13 third-party distributors.

In addition to general sales and marketing training, we provide our sales organization with comprehensive, hands-on cadaveric and dry-lab training sessions focusing on the clinical benefits of our products and how to use them. We believe our robust training and professional development programs have been an important component of our success to date and will help support our anticipated future growth. We expect to continue to increase the size of our sales organization in order to increase sales and market penetration and to provide the significant, ongoing level of customer support required by our sales and marketing strategy.

As of March 31, 2017, we had 27 employees working in our European operations, and have established operations in Italy (2010), Germany (2014), and the United Kingdom (2015). As of March 31, 2017, our international sales force consisted of 12 sales representatives directly employed by us and 28 exclusive third- party distributors, which together had sales in 27 countries through March 31, 2017. We anticipate continuing to build our operations in the major European countries while establishing distributor arrangements in smaller ones. We intend to follow a similar model in Europe to the one established in the United States, working with internationally recognized healthcare professional experts as we expand our training and reimbursement activities. As of the date of this prospectus, surgeons had performed the first iFuse Procedures in New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and Taiwan.

Research and Development

Since the launch of the initial system, we have introduced a number of new instrument enhancements, product enhancements and procedure enhancements. The most notable instrument enhancement was the release of the revamped instruments in the Radiolucent Set. We also run a “Non Standard Product” program that designs and manufactures one-off, Class I instruments to our surgeon customers based on one-off requests.

 

103


Table of Contents

Our next generation iFuse implant, the iFuse-3D, was cleared for marketing by the U.S Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in March 2017 and the European Union in May 2017. This implant is produced with 3D printing and is designed to promote in-growth, through-growth and on-growth by bone. This product has shown positive bone growth in animal studies as evidenced in two peer reviewed studies accepted in March 2017 for publication in the International Journal of Spine Surgery. We are planning a gradual roll out of this product. The photographs below from sheep studies show robust growth of bone into our iFuse-3D implants, whether or not ground-up bone is added. Ground-up bone was added to the implant shown on the right.

 

LOGO                      LOGO

We expect to continue developing enhancements to iFuse to meet our customers’ changing needs and improve the surgery’s effectiveness. Our research and development expense was $8.6 million and $6.4 million in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

Competition

We believe we were the first to develop, manufacture, and market an implant cleared by the FDA expressly for sacroiliac joint fusion. Over the past several years, other companies have subsequently recognized the opportunity and have entered the minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion market. However, all of these products are either screw-based or allograft products. We expect more competitors to enter into the market and an increased number of new product introductions by existing competitors. Many of our competitors are large, publicly traded companies that can dedicate far greater resources to the minimally invasive sacroiliac joint market than we can. These companies often have wide product offerings for spine and orthopedic surgery, which allow them to bundle products in order to win large hospital group contracts and can increase the barrier to entry for us. We also expect there to be a continued push for non-surgical alternatives.

In the United States, our primary competitors are Globus Medical, Inc., Medtronic plc, X-Spine Systems, Inc., XTant, and Zyga Technology, Inc. Globus Medical, SIGNUS Medizintechnik GmbH, and X-Spine Systems are our primary competitors in Europe. However, they sell screw-based products, which we believe to be weaker and less able to resist rotation than our triangular iFuse Implants. We also compete against non-hardware products, such as allograft bone implants. These allograft products are comprised of human cells or tissues and are regulated by the FDA differently from hardware medical devices.

Based on our commercial experience and market research, we believe iFuse is currently used in approximately 70% of minimally invasive surgical fusions of the sacroiliac joint in the United States. iFuse is the only minimally invasive product for sacroiliac joint fusion commercially available in the United States that, to our knowledge, is supported by published evidence of safety, clinical effectiveness, durability, and economic utility. These benefits are supported by more than 50 published papers.

 

104


Table of Contents

The following are the primary competitive factors on which companies compete in our industry:

 

    product and clinical procedure effectiveness;

 

    ease of surgical technique and use of associated instruments;

 

    safety;

 

    published clinical outcomes and evidence;

 

    sales force knowledge;

 

    product support and service, and customer service;

 

    comprehensive training, including disease, anatomy, diagnosis and treatment;

 

    product innovation and the speed of innovation;

 

    intellectual property;

 

    accountability and responsiveness to customers’ demands;

 

    pricing and reimbursement;

 

    scientific (biomechanics) data; and

 

    attracting and retaining key personnel.

Intellectual Property

We protect our intellectual property through our pending patent applications and issued patents. As of March 31, 2017, we had been issued 23 patents in the United States, five patents in Japan and one in China. Also, as of March 31, 2017, we have 16 pending patent applications in the United States and 12 pending patent applications outside of United States. We have focused the majority of our foreign patent efforts in Brazil, China, Europe, India, Japan, and South Korea.

Generally, our current U.S. patents are expected to expire between August 2024 to March 2033, and our Japanese patents are expected to expire between August 2025 and October 2031.

We have 17 registered trademarks in the United States and have filed for seven more. In other countries, we have focused on registering three primary trademarks: “iFuse Implant System,” “SI-BONE,” and the SI-BONE logo. As of March 31, 2017, we have sought protection for at least two of these trademarks in 60 countries.

We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation, and may rely upon licensing opportunities in the future, to develop and maintain our competitive position. We may seek to protect our proprietary rights through a variety of methods, including confidentiality agreements and proprietary information agreements with suppliers, employees, consultants and others who may have access to proprietary information, under which they are bound to assign to us inventions made during the term of their employment.

The term of individual patents depends on the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. There can be no assurance that patents will be issued from any of our pending applications or that, if patents are issued, they will be of sufficient scope or strength to provide meaningful protection for our technology. Notwithstanding the scope of the patent protection available to us, a competitor could develop treatment methods or devices that are not covered by our patents but which compete with our proprietary technology and products. Furthermore, numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing products. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be applications unknown to us, which applications may later result in issued patents that our existing or future products or proprietary technologies may be alleged and/or found to infringe.

 

105


Table of Contents

There has been substantial litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the medical device industry. In the future, we may need to engage in litigation to enforce patents issued or licensed to us, to protect our trade secrets or know-how and brands, to defend against claims of infringement of the rights of others or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Litigation could be costly and could divert our attention from other functions and responsibilities. Adverse determinations in litigation could reduce the barriers to entry that we have established for iFuse, or subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, require us to seek licenses from third parties or prevent us from manufacturing, selling or using iFuse, any of which could severely harm our business.

Regulation

Domestic Regulation of Our Products and Business

Our research, development and clinical programs, as well as our manufacturing and marketing operations, are subject to extensive regulation in the United States and other countries. Most notably, all of our products sold in the United States are subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, as implemented and enforced by the FDA. The FDA governs the following activities that we perform or that are performed on our behalf, to ensure that medical products distributed domestically or exported internationally are safe and effective for their intended uses:

 

    product design, development, and manufacture;

 

    product safety, testing, labeling, and storage;

 

    record keeping procedures;

 

    product marketing, sales, distribution and export; and

 

    post-marketing surveillance, complaint handling, medical device reporting, reporting of deaths, serious injuries or device malfunctions, and repair or recall of products.

There are numerous FDA regulatory requirements governing the clearance or approval and marketing of our products. These include:

 

    product listing and establishment registration, which helps facilitate FDA inspections and other regulatory action;

 

    investigational device exemptions to conduct premarket clinical trials, which include extensive monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements;

 

    Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers, including third-party manufacturers, to follow stringent design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during all aspects of the manufacturing process;

 

    labeling regulations and FDA prohibitions against the promotion of products for uncleared, unapproved or off-label use or indication;

 

    clearance of product modifications that could significantly affect safety or effectiveness or that would constitute a major change in intended use of one of our cleared devices;

 

    approval of product modifications that affect the safety or effectiveness of one of our approved devices;

 

    medical device reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers comply with FDA requirements to report if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction of the device or a similar device were to recur;

 

    post-approval restrictions or conditions, including post-approval study commitments;

 

    post-market surveillance regulations, which apply when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device;

 

106


Table of Contents
    the FDA’s recall authority, whereby it can ask, or under certain conditions order, device manufacturers to recall from the market a product that is in violation of governing laws and regulations;

 

    regulations pertaining to voluntary recalls; and

 

    notices of corrections or removals.

We have registered our facility with the FDA as a medical device manufacturer. The FDA has broad post- market and regulatory enforcement powers. We and our third-party manufacturers are subject to announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA to determine our compliance with the QSR and other regulations and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of our suppliers.

FDA Premarket Clearance and Approval Requirements

Unless an exemption applies, each medical device we wish to commercially distribute in the United States will require either premarket notification, or 510(k), clearance or approval of a premarket approval application, PMA, from the FDA. The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three classes. Devices deemed to pose lower risks are placed in either Class I or II, which typically requires the manufacturer to submit to the FDA a premarket notification requesting permission to commercially distribute the device. This process is generally known as 510(k) clearance. Some low risk devices are exempted from this requirement. Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risks, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices, or devices deemed not substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device, are placed in Class III, requiring a PMA. All of our currently marketed products are Class II devices, subject to 510(k) clearance.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are generally required to support a PMA application and are sometimes required for 510(k) clearance. Such trials for implanted devices such as iFuse generally require an investigational device exemption application, or IDE, approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of subjects and study sites, unless the product is deemed a nonsignificant risk device eligible for more abbreviated IDE requirements. Clinical trials are subject to extensive monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Clinical trials must be conducted under the oversight of an institutional review board, or IRB, for the relevant clinical trial sites and must comply with FDA regulations, including but not limited to those relating to good clinical practices. To conduct a clinical trial, we also are required to obtain the subjects’ informed consent in form and substance that complies with both FDA requirements and state and federal privacy and human subject protection regulations. We, the FDA or the institutional review board, or IRB, could suspend a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study subjects outweigh the anticipated benefits. Even if a trial is completed, the results of clinical testing may not adequately demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device or may otherwise not be sufficient to obtain FDA clearance or approval to market the product in the United States. Similarly, in Europe the clinical study must be approved by a local ethics committee and in some cases, including studies with high- risk devices, by the ministry of health in the applicable country.

Pervasive and Continuing Regulation

After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements continue to apply. These include:

 

    Product listing and establishment registration, which helps facilitate FDA inspections and other regulatory action;

 

    QSR, which requires manufacturers, including third-party manufacturers, to follow stringent design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during all aspects of the manufacturing process;

 

    labeling regulations and FDA prohibitions against the promotion of products for uncleared, unapproved or off-label use or indication;

 

    clearance of product modifications that could significantly affect safety or effectiveness or that would constitute a major change in intended use of one of our cleared devices;

 

107


Table of Contents
    approval of product modifications that affect the safety or effectiveness of one of our approved devices;

 

    medical device reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers comply with FDA requirements to report if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction of the device or a similar device were to recur;

 

    post-approval restrictions or conditions, including post-approval study commitments;

 

    post-market surveillance regulations, which apply when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device;

 

    the FDA’s recall authority, whereby it can ask, or under certain conditions order, device manufacturers to recall from the market a product that is in violation of governing laws and regulations;

 

    regulations pertaining to voluntary recalls; and

 

    notices of corrections or removals.

The FDA inspected our facilities in May 2014. As a result, we received a Form 483 with three observations that have been since been corrected following a corrective and preventative action plan. We responded to the Agency in writing and the matter was closed as of October 2014. To date, the FDA has not taken any further actions with respect to the May 2014 inspection or its findings. The FDA inspected our facilities again in December 2016. As a result, no findings were noted.

Promotional Materials—“Off-Label” Promotion

Advertising and promotion of medical devices, in addition to being regulated by the FDA, are also regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and by state regulatory and enforcement authorities. If the FDA determines that our promotional materials or training constitutes promotion of an unapproved use, it could request that we modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine, or criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our promotional or training materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. In that event, our reputation could be damaged and adoption of the products would be impaired.

In addition, under the federal Lanham Act and similar state laws, competitors, and others can initiate litigation relating to advertising claims.

International Regulation of Our Products

Our research, development and clinical programs, as well as our manufacturing and marketing operations, are subject to extensive regulation in other countries. For example, in the European Economic Area, or EEA, our devices are required to comply with the Essential Requirements laid down in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 93/42/EEC), or Essential Requirements, concerning medical devices. Compliance with these requirements entitles us to affix the CE mark to our medical devices, without which they cannot be commercialized in the EEA.

To demonstrate compliance with the Essential Requirements, we must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. Except for low risk medical devices (Class I with no measuring function and which are not sterile), where the manufacturer can issue an EC Declaration of Conformity based on a self-assessment of the conformity of its products with the Essential

 

108


Table of Contents

Requirements, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a Notified Body, which is an organization designated by the competent authorities of a EEA country to conduct conformity assessments. The Notified Body typically audits and examines products’ Technical File and the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of our devices before issuing a CE Certificate of Conformity demonstrating compliance with the relevant Essential Requirements. Following the issuance of this CE Certificate of Conformity, we can draw up an EC Declaration of Conformity and affix the CE mark to the products covered by this CE Certificate of Conformity and the EC Declaration of Conformity. We have successfully completed several Notified Body audits since our original certification in November 2010. Following these audits, our Notified Body issued International Standards Organization Certificates and CE Certificates of Conformity allowing us to draw up an EC Declaration of Conformity and affix the CE mark to certain of our devices.

After the product has been CE marked and placed on the market in the EEA, we must comply with a number of regulatory requirements relating to:

 

    registration of medical devices in individual EEA countries;

 

    pricing and reimbursement of medical devices;

 

    establishment of post-marketing surveillance and adverse event reporting procedures;

 

    Field Safety Corrective Actions, including product recalls and withdrawals; and

 

    interactions with physicians.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in enforcement measures being taken against us by the competent authorities of the EEA countries. These can include fines, administrative penalties, compulsory product withdraws, injunctions and criminal prosecution. Such enforcement measures would have an adverse effect on our capacity to market our products in the EEA and, consequently, on our business and financial position.

Further, the advertising and promotion of our products in the EEA is subject to the provisions of the Medical Devices Directive, Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising, and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, as well as other national legislation in the EEA countries governing the advertising and promotion of medical devices. These laws may limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may impose limitations on our promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

Regulatory Status

In November 2008, we received 510(k) clearance to market iFuse from the FDA. Since 2008, we have received additional FDA 510(k) clearances for new instruments, additional implant sizes and labeling changes. In the United States, the iFuse Implant System is intended for sacroiliac fusion for conditions, including sacroiliac joint dysfunction that is a direct result of sacroiliac joint disruptions and degenerative sacroiliitis. This includes conditions where symptoms began during pregnancy or in the peripartum period and have persisted postpartum for more than six months. Clinical Studies have demonstrated that treatment with the iFuse Implant System improved pain, patient function, and quality of life. In the future, we plan to pursue additional 510(k) clearances for new products and changes to the current indication for iFuse.

In November 2010, we obtained a CE Certificate of Conformity and affixed a CE mark to our device to allow commercialization of iFuse in the EEA. In the EEA and Switzerland, iFuse is intended for sacroiliac joint fusion. Since 2010, we have added additional instruments and implant sizes and labeling updates to our product offerings in Europe. We plan to continue to work with our Notified Body to incorporate new products and labeling updates in our Technical Files for CE marking in European.

 

109


Table of Contents

Since July 2013, we have obtained approval for iFuse in regions beyond the United States and the EEA, including Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore. Additional product applications are under review in Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and India. We are currently collecting information to determine our regulatory strategy in Japan and China.

In March 2017, our next generation iFuse-3D implants received marketing clearance from the FDA.

Healthcare Fraud and Abuse

Federal and state governmental agencies and equivalent foreign authorities subject the healthcare industry to intense regulatory scrutiny, including heightened civil and criminal enforcement efforts. These laws constrain the sales, marketing and other promotional activities of medical device manufacturers by limiting the kinds of financial arrangements we may have with hospitals, physicians and other potential purchases of our products. Federal healthcare fraud and abuse laws apply to our business when a customer submits a claim for an item or service that is reimbursed under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally-funded healthcare programs. Descriptions of some of the laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate follows.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, items or services for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, and the government can establish a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute without proving that a person or entity had actual knowledge of the law or a specific intent to violate. The Anti-Kickback Statute is subject to evolving interpretations and has been applied by government enforcement officials to a number of common business arrangements in the medical device industry. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution; however, those exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and there is no exception or safe harbor for many common business activities. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute, but the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. A number of states also have anti-kickback laws that establish similar prohibitions that may apply to items or services reimbursed by government programs, as well as any third-party payors, including commercial payors.

The Civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false or fraudulent claim for payment of federal funds, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. A claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. Actions under the False Claims Act may be brought by the government or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Qui tam actions are filed under seal and impose a mandatory duty on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate such allegations. Most private citizen actions are declined by the Department of Justice or dismissed by federal courts. However, the investigation costs for a company can be significant and material even if the allegations are without merit. There are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment and criminal fines, for making or presenting a false or fictitious or fraudulent claim to the federal government.

False Claims Act liability is potentially significant in the healthcare industry because the statute provides for treble damages and mandatory penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim or statement (and penalties of $10,781 to $21,563 per false claim or statement for penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, based on violations occurring after November 2, 2015). Because of the potential for large monetary exposure, healthcare companies often resolve allegations without admissions of liability for significant and sometimes material amounts to avoid the uncertainty of treble damages and per claim penalties that may awarded in litigation proceedings. They may be required, however, to enter into corporate integrity agreements with the government, which may impose substantial costs on companies to ensure compliance.

 

110


Table of Contents

In addition, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which is being implemented by CMS as the Open Payments program, requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually with certain exceptions to CMS information related to payments or other “transfers of value” made to physicians and teaching hospitals, and requires applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members and payments or other “transfers of value” to such physician owners. Certain states also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs, impose restrictions on device manufacturer marketing practices, and/or require tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to healthcare professionals and entities.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 and similar anti-bribery laws in other countries, such as the United Kingdom Anti-Bribery Act generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to government officials and/or other persons for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Our policies mandate compliance with these anti-bribery laws.

Violations of these laws can subject us to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, fines, damages, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Coverage and reimbursement for iFuse products and related procedures vary by setting of care, payor type, and region. In the United States, healthcare providers that purchase iFuse products look to various third-party payors, such as Medicare, Medicaid, private commercial insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, accountable care organization, or ACOs, and other healthcare-related organizations, to cover and pay for all or part of the costs of these procedures. These providers bill patients for any applicable deductibles or co-payments. Sales volumes and prices of company products will continue to depend in large part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from such third-party payors.

In the United States, the Medicare program is commonly used as a model for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for healthcare items and services, including iFuse Procedures. Medicare’s coverage policies may vary across the country, however. Unless a national coverage policy exists for a particular technology, each Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, is permitted to make its own determination of whether that item or service is covered by Medicare.

Medicare’s reimbursement rates for the iFuse Procedure vary due to geographic location, the nature of facility in which the procedure is performed (i.e., hospital inpatient department, hospital outpatient department, or ambulatory surgical center) and other factors. Medicare reviews and updates its payment rates and methodologies for these settings of care annually, and rates can change significantly from year to year. In addition, Congress can alter reimbursement rates at any time by mandating changes to Medicare’s payment methodologies.

Similarly, private payor coverage policies and reimbursement rates tend to vary across payors and settings of care. Payors continually review the clinical evidence for new technologies and can change their coverage policies without notice or deny payment if the product was not used in accordance with the payor’s coverage policy. Payors also review and challenge the prices charged for products and procedures.

 

111


Table of Contents

In the United States, a large percentage of insured individuals receive their medical care through managed care programs, which monitor and often require pre-approval of the services that a member will receive. Some managed care programs pay their providers on a per capita basis, which puts the providers at financial risk for the services provided to their patients by paying these providers a predetermined payment per member per month.

Outside the United States, reimbursement levels vary significantly by country, and by region within some countries. Reimbursement is obtained from a variety of sources, including government-sponsored and private health insurance plans, and combinations of both. Some countries will require us to gather additional clinical data before recognizing and granting broader coverage and reimbursement for our products. European Economic Area, or EEA.

Manufacturing and Supply

We use third-party manufacturers to produce our instruments and implants. The majority of our instruments have secondary manufacturing suppliers and we continually work with additional manufacturers to establish secondary suppliers. Our iFuse Implants are currently provided by a single source, Orchid Bio-Coat, a division of Orchid Orthopedic Solutions LLC, or Orchid. In April 2016, we entered into a Quality and Manufacturing Agreement with Orchid MPS Holdings, LLC, or Orchid, which agreement was amended in March 2017, pursuant to which Orchid manufactures certain of our implants in accordance with our specifications. We purchase product under the agreement pursuant to purchase orders we are required to deliver against a blanket purchase order we provide based on our product forecast; provided, however, that while we are required to purchase the amounts forecast in the blanket purchase order, we are not required to purchase product in excess of a specified amount of inventory based on our original forecast. During the first year of the agreement, the prices we pay for products are fixed under the agreement; provided that on an annual basis thereafter we will meet with Orchid to review changes in direct costs beyond certain thresholds and may negotiate changes to prices based on such changes in costs. In addition, the prices we pay for product may be increased with our consent to the extent such products are ordered with delivery timelines shorter than agreed upon order timelines. The initial term of the agreement is three years; provided, however, the agreement may be terminated immediately by (a)(i) either party as the result of the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency, (ii) in the case of Orchid, our failure to make payments for products purchased under the agreement if such failure continues for a specified period after notice from Orchid, or (iii) either party as the result of a material breach of the agreement and such breaching party fails to cure such breach within a specified period after notice from the non-breaching party, (b) us in the event Orchid fails to remedy any deficiencies we may identify pursuant to our right to inspect Orchid’s facilities under the agreement, and (c) either party with prior written notice as provided under the agreement. To mitigate supply risk, we carry a minimum of two months of reserve stock based on current sales estimates and typically place implant orders with Orchid prior to estimated demand.

In addition we have added a second source supplier for machine parts. On February 1, 2017, we entered into a non-exclusive Manufacturing, Quality and Supply Agreement with rms Company, or RMS, pursuant to which RMS manufactures certain of our implants in accordance with our specifications. We may purchase product under the agreement pursuant to purchase orders we deliver from time to time based on forecasted requirements; provided, however, we have no minimum purchase obligations under the agreement. During the initial three year term of the agreement, the prices we pay for products are fixed under the agreement provided that if order volumes deviate from forecasted amounts beyond certain thresholds we or RMS may request to negotiate further price changes. After the initial term, the agreement automatically renews for successive one year periods; provided, however, the agreement may be terminated early by either party in the event of a material breach of the agreement by the other party or by the insolvency of the other party. We may terminate the agreement at any time in the event (i) RMS fails to ship conforming product and such failure results in delays as specified in the agreement, (ii) RMS changes its manufacturing site without our prior approval, (iii) of a change of control of RMS, or (iv) RMS breaches a non-solicit covenant with respect to our employees or consultants. The parts manufactured by RMS need to be coated by Orchid to finish the goods.

Aside from quality agreements, we do not currently have manufacturing agreements with any of our manufacturers and orders are controlled through purchase orders.

 

112


Table of Contents

We believe that our manufacturing operations, and those of our suppliers, are in compliance with regulations mandated by the FDA, as well as Medical Devices Directive regulations in the EEA. Manufacturing facilities that produce medical devices or component parts intended for distribution world-wide are subject to regulation and periodic planned and unannounced inspection by the FDA and other domestic and international regulatory agencies.

In the United States, products we sell are required to be manufactured in compliance with the FDA’s QSR, which covers the methods used in, and the facilities used for, the design, testing, control, manufacturing, labeling, quality assurance, packaging, storage, and shipping. In international markets, we are required to obtain and maintain various quality assurance and quality management certifications. We have obtained the following international certifications: Quality Management System ISO13485, Full Quality Assurance Certification for the design and manufacture of iFuse, and a Design Examination certificate for iFuse.

We are required to demonstrate continuing compliance with applicable regulatory requirements to maintain these certifications and will continue to be periodically inspected by international regulatory authorities for certification purposes. Further, we and certain of our suppliers are required to comply with all applicable regulations and current good manufacturing practices. As set forth above, these FDA and international regulations cover, among other things, the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, sterilization, storage, and shipping of our products. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements is subject to continual review and is monitored rigorously through periodic inspections. If we or our manufacturers fail to adhere to current good manufacturing practice requirements, this could delay production of our products and lead to fines, difficulties in obtaining regulatory approvals, recalls, enforcement actions, including injunctive relief or consent decrees, or other consequences, which could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Product Liability and Insurance

The manufacture and sale of our products subjects us to the risk of financial exposure to product liability claims. Our products are used in situations in which there is a risk of serious injury or death. We carry insurance policies which we believe to be customary for similar companies in our industry. We cannot assure you that these policies will be sufficient to cover all or substantially all losses that we experience.

We endeavor to maintain executive and organization liability insurance in a form and with aggregate coverage limits that we believe are adequate for our business purposes, but our coverage limits may prove not to be adequate in some circumstances.

Legal Proceedings

We are, and from time to time may be, party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. As our growth continues, we may become party to an increasing number of litigation matters and claims. The outcome of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, and the resolution of these matters could materially affect our future results of operations, cash flow or financial position. We are not presently party to any legal proceedings that in the opinion of management, if determined adversely to us, would individually or taken together have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition or cash flow.

Employees

As of March 31, 2017, we had 183 employees, including sales and marketing, product development, general administrative and accounting, both domestically and internationally. As of March 31, 2017, we had a direct field sales organization of 73 in the United States and 12 in Europe. In the United States, we sell primarily through our direct field organization, and we have a small number of third-party distributors. None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

 

113


Table of Contents

Company History

SI-BONE was founded in 2008 by the main inventor of iFuse and member of our board of directors, orthopedist Mark A. Reiley, M.D., our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Jeffrey W. Dunn, and orthopedic surgeon Leonard Rudolf, M.D. Dr. Reiley previously invented balloon kyphoplasty and founded Kyphon Inc., which was sold to Medtronic plc in 2007. He also invented the INBONE total ankle replacement system, which was sold to Wright Medical Technology, Inc. in 2008.

Facilities

Our leased headquarters in San Jose, California, is comprised of approximately 18,892 square feet. Our headquarters houses our research, product development, marketing, finance, education, and administration functions. We believe our facilities are adequate and suitable for our current needs but in the future we may need additional space.

 

114


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT

Executive Officers, Key Employees and Directors

The following table sets forth information regarding our executive officers, key employees and directors, as of May 1, 2017:

 

Name

 

Age

   

Position(s)

Executive Officers and Key Employees

   

Jeffrey W. Dunn

    62    

President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman

Laura A. Francis

    50    

Chief Financial Officer

W. Carlton Reckling, M.D.

    55    

Chief Medical Officer and Vice President, Medical Affairs

Anthony J. Recupero

    58    

Chief Commercial Officer

Scott A. Yerby, Ph.D.

    49    

Chief Technology Officer

Daniel J. Cher, M.D.

    52    

Vice President, Clinical Affairs

Roxanne Dubois

    52    

Vice President, Regulatory and Quality

Nikolas F. Kerr

    46    

Vice President, Product Marketing

Andrea Mercanti

    53    

Vice President, EMEA Operations

Michael Mydra

    56    

Vice President, Health Outcomes & Reimbursement

Michael A. Pisetsky

    39    

Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer

Joseph W. Powers

    58    

Vice President, Marketing

Non-Employee Directors

   

David P. Bonita, M.D.(2)

    41    

Director

Timothy E. Davis, Jr.(1)(2)

    47    

Director

John G. Freund, M.D.(3)

    63    

Director

Gregory K. Hinckley(1)

    70    

Director

Karen A. Licitra(2)

    57    

Director

Timothy B. Petersen(1)

    53    

Director

Mark A. Reiley, M.D.

    67    

Director

Keith C. Valentine(3)

    49    

Director

 

(1) Member of the audit committee.
(2) Member of the compensation committee.
(3) Member of the nominating and corporate governance committee.

Executive Officers

Jeffrey W. Dunn has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer and as the Chairman of our board of directors since our inception in April 2008. Prior to joining us, Mr. Dunn served as Chief Executive Officer of INBONE Technologies, Inc., an ankle replacement and small bone fusion medical device company, from December 2006 to April 2008, until its sale to Wright Medical Technology, Inc. in April 2008. From August 2000 to June 2006, Mr. Dunn was the Chief Executive Officer of Active Decisions, Inc., a software as a service business, until its sale to Knova Software, Inc. From December 1999 to June 2000, Mr. Dunn was the Chief Executive Officer of Velogic, Inc., an internet performance testing software company, until its sale to Keynote Systems Inc. From June 1999 to December 1999, Mr. Dunn was the Chief Executive Officer of EnterpriseLink

 

115


Table of Contents

Inc., a provider of enterprise Internet enablement software, until its sale to Merant, Inc. From November 1994 to June 1998, Mr. Dunn was Chief Executive Officer of AccelGraphics Inc., a 3D graphics system supplier, until its sale to Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation. As well, during his career, Mr. Dunn held executive positions with Evans and Sutherland, Cygnet Systems, Inc., Avnet, Inc. and Xerox Corporation. Mr. Dunn received a B.A. from Colgate University and an M.B.A. from Babson College. We believe Mr. Dunn’s experience in the industry, his role as our President and Chief Executive Officer, and his knowledge of our company enable him to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

Laura A. Francis has served as our Chief Financial Officer since May 2015. Prior to joining us, Ms. Francis was the Chief Financial Officer for Auxogyn, Inc., a women’s health company, from December 2012 to September 2014. From September 2004 to December 2012, Ms. Francis served as Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for Promega Corporation, a life science reagent company. From March 2002 to September 2004, Ms. Francis served as the Chief Financial Officer of Bruker BioSciences Corporation, a public life science instrumentation company. From May 2001 to March 2002, Ms. Francis served as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Nutra-Park Inc., an agricultural biotechnology company. From April 1999 to May 2001, Ms. Francis was Chief Financial Officer of Hypercosm, Inc., a software company. From October 1995 to April 1999, Ms. Francis was an engagement manager with McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm. Early in her career, Ms. Francis was an audit manager with Coopers & Lybrand, an accounting firm. Ms. Francis received a B.B.A. from the University of Wisconsin and an M.B.A. from Stanford University. She is a Certified Public Accountant (inactive) in the State of California.

W. Carlton Reckling, M.D. has served as our Vice President, Medical Affairs since April 2012 and our Chief Medical Officer since February 2017. From July 1994 to April 2012, Dr. Reckling was a spine surgeon at the Spine Center in Loveland, Colorado, Rocky Mountain Orthopedic Specialists in Cheyenne, Wyoming, the Center for Spine & Orthopedic Surgery in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Associates in Orthopedic Surgery in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Ramsey Hospital and Clinics in St. Paul, Minnesota. Dr. Reckling received a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Northwestern University, an M.D. from Creighton University, and an M.B.A. from the University of Wyoming. He completed his internship and his residency in orthopedic surgery at the University of Minnesota. While in the Minnesota program, he spent time at the Twin Cities Scoliosis Center. He completed his fellowship in spine surgery at Queen’s University Medical Centre in Nottingham, England. Dr. Reckling also underwent additional training in general surgery at the University of Minnesota Hospitals and Clinics in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Dr. Reckling is a board-certified orthopedic spine surgeon.

Anthony J. Recupero has served as our Chief Commercial Officer since July 2016. Prior to joining us, Mr. Recupero was the President of Catalyst Performance Advisors, LLC, where he advised leading medical device companies on commercial strategy from June 2013 to July 2016. In July 2008, Mr. Recupero joined Baxano, Inc., a medical device company with minimally invasive products to treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting the lumbar region, initially as Vice President of Sales and Marketing and was promoted in February 2009 to President and Chief Executive Officer until its acquisition by TranS1 in June 2013. From January 2005 to July 2008, Mr. Recupero was President of Recupero Consulting Group, LLC, where he advised leading medical device companies on commercial strategy. From October 1999 to December 2004, Mr. Recupero was the Vice President of Sales for Kyphon. Early in his career, Mr. Recupero progressed to senior sales management roles at United States Surgical Corporation and Sulzer Spine-Tech, Inc. Mr. Recupero received a B.A. in Communications from State University of New York at Albany.

Scott A. Yerby, Ph.D. has served as our Chief Technology Officer since January 2011. Prior to joining us, Dr. Yerby served as Vice President, Research and Development for ProMed, Inc., a medical supply company, from June 2009 to January 2011. From May 2007 to June 2009, Dr. Yerby sat on the board of several non-profit organizations. From June 2000 to May 2007, Dr. Yerby served as Vice President of Research and Development for St. Francis Medical Technologies, Inc., a spinal manufacturing company, until its acquisition by Kyphon, Inc. From June 1997 to June 2000, Dr. Yerby served as Director of Experimental Biomechanics at the Palo Alto VA Hospital. Early in his career, Dr. Yerby held appointments as Consulting Assistant Professor at Stanford

 

116


Table of Contents

University in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Division of Biomechanical Engineering, and the Department of Functional Restoration, Division of Orthopedic Surgery. Dr. Yerby received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering, all from the University of California, Davis.

Key Employees

Daniel J. Cher, M.D. has served as our Vice President, Clinical Affairs since January 2012. From May 2008 to December 2011, Dr. Cher served as Vice President of Clinical and Regulatory Affairs at Chestnut Medical Technologies, Inc., a company developing new minimally invasive therapies for interventional neuroradiology. From March 2007 to January 2008, Dr. Cher served as Vice President of Clinical and Regulatory Affairs at Pulmonx Inc., a medical device company developing products for patients with emphysema. From October 2004 to March 2007, Dr. Cher was Medical Director and Vice President of Clinical Research at Kyphon. From October 2003 to September 2004, Dr. Cher was Medical Director for Cardima, Inc., a medical device company developing products for cardiac ablation. Prior to Cardima, Dr. Cher was a statistician at Conceptus Inc., a manufacturer and developer of medical devices aimed at permanent female sterilization. During the last 17 years, Dr. Cher has provided clinical and regulatory strategic consulting services to medical device companies in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. Dr. Cher received a B.S. in Biology from Stanford University and an M.D. from Yale University. Dr. Cher completed his residency in internal medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco. He completed additional training in general internal medicine and research methods at Stanford University and the Palo Alto VA Hospital.

Roxanne Dubois has served as our Vice President, Regulatory and Quality since February 2014. Previously, Ms. Dubois served as our Senior Director, Regulatory from December 2012 to February 2014 and as a consultant for us from February 2012 to December 2012. From February 2009 to February 2014, Ms. Dubois was Vice President, Regulatory as an employee and consultant with Tenaxis Medical Inc., a medical device company. From January 2006 to December 2008, Ms. Dubois served as Vice President, Regulatory and Quality at Carbylan BioSurgery, Inc., a medical device company. From February 2005 to January 2006, Ms. Dubois served as Director, Regulatory at Kyphon. Previously, Ms. Dubois held various regulatory roles at Angiotech BioMaterials Corporation, ReGen Biologic, Inc., and Collagen Corporation. Ms. Dubois received a B.S. in Biochemistry from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Nikolas F. Kerr has served as our Vice President, Product Marketing since August 2016. Prior to joining us, Mr. Kerr was President of Kerr Consulting Group where he advised leading medical device companies on product strategy. Previously, Mr. Kerr was Senior Director of Marketing for Benvenue Medical from December 2013 to June 2014. From August 2011 to December 2013, Mr. Kerr was Senior Director of Marketing for Baxano. From August 2006 to August 2011, Mr. Kerr served in various marketing roles at Medtronic’s Spinal & Biologics Group including the Director of Global Marketing for the Kyphon division. And from August 1998 to August 2006, Mr. Kerr served in various sales, marketing, and business development roles for Milliken & Company. Mr. Kerr started his career with Credit Suisse as an Analyst for Debt Capital Markets. Mr. Kerr received a B.S. in Finance and Economics and Master of International Business Economics from the Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina.

Andrea Mercanti has served as our Vice President, EMEA Operations since May 2013, and he previously served as our Vice President, European Operations from September 2010 to April 2013. Prior to joining us, Mr. Mercanti was General Director for Italy of MBA Incorporado, an orthopedic, spine and biomaterials distributor, from April 2009 to August 2010. From January 2008 to March 2009, Mr. Mercanti was Vice President, Sales Europe for Europe for Orthofix International N.V., a spinal care solutions company. From December 2006 to December 2007, Mr. Mercanti was Business Unit Director for Italy, Regional Director South Europe, and Director of South Europe and German speaking countries at Kyphon. From December 2005 to November 2006, he served as Regional Director for South Europe for Kyphon. From January 1987 to December 2004, Mr. Mercanti held positions in strategic sales in different divisions of Medtronic, including 12 years in the

 

117


Table of Contents

Neurological Business Unit with spinal cord stimulation treatment for pain and, in the last four years, as Director of Spine Business. Mr. Mercanti received a degree in economics from the Technical and Economics School at the Instituto Milano in Milan, Italy.

Michael Mydra has served as our Vice President, Health Outcomes and Reimbursement since April 2012. Prior to joining us, Mr. Mydra was Vice President, Health Outcomes & Reimbursement for Vertos Medical, Inc., a manufacturer of lumbar spine technologies, from August 2009 to February 2012. From September 2003 to March 2009, Mr. Mydra served as Vice President, Reimbursement for Sanarus Medical, Inc., a medical device manufacturer. From September 1998 to September 2003, Mr. Mydra served as Director of Corporate and Payor Development at Urologix, Inc., a medical device manufacturer. Early in his career, Mr. Mydra worked at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, a health insurance provider. Mr. Mydra received a B.A. in Biology and an M.B.A. from the University of St. Thomas, and he received a graduate certificate from the Advanced Management Program for Healthcare Executives sponsored by the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management and the Mayo Foundation.

Michael A. Pisetsky has served as our Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer since August 2016. Mr. Pisetsky joined us in March 2015 as our Director of Legal. From August 2011 to March 2015, Mr. Pisetsky practiced law privately, serving as General Counsel to New Wave Surgical Corp. and a large operator of shopping centers in the Southeast, among a number of other companies in the medical technology and healthcare services space. From August 2008 to July 2011, Mr. Pisetsky was an Associate in the Business Department at Cooley LLP in Palo Alto, representing a portfolio of medical technology, biotech, healthcare services and general technology clients, from inception to public offering and eventual sale. Mr. Pisetsky received his B.A. with Honors from Harvard College. Mr. Pisetsky received his J.D. (magna cum laude) and M.B.A., including a certificate in Health Sector Management, concurrently from Duke University.

Joseph W. Powers has served as our Vice President, Marketing since August 2012. Previously, Mr. Powers served as our Senior Director, Business Development from January 2012 to July 2012 and as our Western Area Sales Director from December 2009 to December 2011. Prior to joining us, Mr. Powers served as Vice President, Clinical/Marketing at Benvenue Medical, Inc., a medical device company that makes minimally invasive systems for spine repair, from March 2007 to April 2009. From January 2004 to March 2007, Mr. Powers served as a Spine Consultant at Kyphon, and from December 2002 to December 2004, Mr. Powers served as Director, Product Marketing at Kyphon. Previously, Mr. Powers held positions in marketing management and project management at Target Therapeutics Inc., a medical device company. Mr. Powers received a B.S. in Biology and Chemical Engineering from Arizona State University.

Non-Employee Directors

David P. Bonita, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since April 2014. Dr. Bonita has also served as a Private Equity Partner at OrbiMed Advisors LLC, an investment company focused on the healthcare industry, since June 2013. From December 2007 to June 2013, Dr. Bonita was a Private Equity Principal at OrbiMed. From June 2004 to December 2007, he was a Private Equity Senior Associate at OrbiMed. Prior to OrbiMed, Dr. Bonita was a corporate finance analyst in the healthcare investment banking group of Morgan Stanley from February 1998 to July 1999. From August 1997 to February 1998, Dr. Bonita served as a corporate finance analyst in the healthcare investment banking group of UBS AG, a global financial service firm. Dr. Bonita has served and continues to serve on the board of directors of numerous private and public companies, including Loxo Oncology, Inc., a developer of oncological drugs, from October 2013 to present; ViewRay Inc., a designer and manufacturer of radiation therapy and imaging technologies, from January 2008 to present; and Ambit Biosciences Corporation, a drug developer focusing on oncology, autoimmune, and inflammatory diseases from October 2012 to November 2014. Dr. Bonita received an A.B. in Biological Sciences from Harvard College and an M.D. and an M.B.A. from Columbia University. We believe Dr. Bonita’s extensive investment experience in the healthcare industry and his experience as a public company director enable him to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

 

118


Table of Contents

Timothy E. Davis, Jr. has served as a member of our board of directors since our inception in April 2008. Mr. Davis has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Active Implants, LLC, a company that provides orthopedic implant solutions, since February 2017. From January 2014 through September 2015, Mr. Davis served as Chief Executive Officer of MicroPort Orthopedics, Inc., a multinational producer of orthopedic products, following the purchase of Wright Medical Group’s OrthoRecon Business in January 2014. From December 2006 to January 2014, Mr. Davis served in a number of executive positions for Wright Medical Technology, Inc., a subsidiary of Wright Medical Group, Inc., including President of the OrthoRecon business. From 2004 to 2006, Mr. Davis was a Partner with MB Venture Partners, LLC, a medical technology and life sciences venture capital firm. From 1997 to 2004, Mr. Davis held various positions, ultimately serving as Vice President, with Vector Fund Management, a healthcare and life sciences focused venture capital fund. Early in his career, Mr. Davis worked in the healthcare management consulting and pharmaceutical industries. Mr. Davis received a B.E. degree in Biomedical Engineering from Vanderbilt University and an M.B.A. from the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. We believe Mr. Davis’ experience in the industry and his knowledge of our company enable him to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

John G. Freund, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since January 2013. Dr. Freund founded Skyline Ventures, a venture capital firm, in October 1997 and has served as a Managing Director of Skyline since then. Prior to joining Skyline, Dr. Freund served as Managing Director in the private equity group of Chancellor Capital Management, a private capital investment firm. In November 1995, Dr. Freund co-founded Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a medical device company, and served on its board of directors until March 2000. From 1988 to 1994, he held various positions at Acuson Corporation, a maker of ultrasound equipment that is now part of Siemens, most recently as Executive Vice President. Prior to joining Acuson, Dr. Freund was a general partner of Morgan Stanley Venture Partners from 1987 to 1988. From 1982 to 1988, Dr. Freund was at Morgan Stanley & Co., an investment banking company, where he co-founded the Healthcare Group in the Corporate Finance Department in 1983. Dr. Freund has served on the board of directors of Collegium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, since 2014, Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since 2012, and Proteon Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, since 2014. Dr. Freund also serves on the board of directors of six U.S. registered investment funds managed by affiliates of the Capital Group, Inc. He also previously served on the board of directors of four publicly traded companies, Map Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, MAKO Surgical Corp., a medical device company, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company and was Chairman of XenoPort, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company. Dr. Freund is a member of the Advisory Board for the Harvard Business School of Healthcare Initiative. Dr. Freund received a B.A. in History from Harvard College, an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, where he was a Baker Scholar. We believe Dr. Freund’s experience with medical device companies, his role in the venture capital industry, and his knowledge of our company enable him to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

Gregory K. Hinckley has served as a member of our board of directors since January 2011. Mr. Hinckley has served as President of Mentor Graphics Corporation, an electronic design automation company, since January 1997 and served on the board of directors from January 1999 to June 2016. He has also served as the Chief Financial Officer of Mentor Graphics, first from January 1997 to July 2007 and again from December 2008 to present. Previously, he served on the board of directors of Super Micro Computer, Inc., a manufacturer of servers, from January 2009 to February 2015 and Intermec, Inc., a developer of automated identification and data collection solutions, from July 2004 to September 2013. From August 1992 to January 1997, Mr. Hinckley served as Senior Vice President, Finance of VLSI Technology, Inc., a designer and manufacturer of custom and semi-custom integrated circuits. From January 1989 to November 1991, he served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Crowley Maritime Corporation, a marine solutions, transportation, and logistics company. From February 1983 to January 1989, Mr. Hinckley served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and since April 2017, Mr. Hinckley has served on the board of directors, of Bio-Rad Laboratories, a manufacturer and supplier of products and systems for the life science research and healthcare markets. Previously, Mr. Hinckley held a number of senior officer positions with Raychem Corporation, a developer of products and services for the aerospace, automotive and telecommunications industries. Hinckley received a B.A. in Physics from Claremont McKenna College and was a Fulbright Scholar in applied mathematics at Nottingham University. He received an M.S. in Applied Physics from

 

119


Table of Contents

the University of California, San Diego and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. We believe Mr. Hinckley’s financial experience, his familiarity of serving on the boards of public companies, and his knowledge of our company enable him to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

Karen A. Licitra has served as a member of our board of directors since August 2015. From January 2014 through August 2015, Ms. Licitra served as Corporate Vice President, Worldwide Government Affairs & Policy at Johnson & Johnson, a medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer packaged goods manufacturer. From December 2011 to December 2013, Ms. Licitra served as the Worldwide Chairman, Global Medical Solutions at Johnson & Johnson. From July 2002 to November 2011, she served as the Company Group Chairman and Worldwide Franchise Chairman at Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson medical device company. From January 2001 to June 2002, she served as the President of Ethicon Endo-Surgery. Ms. Licitra currently serves on the board of directors of Novadaq Technologies Inc., a provider of proven comprehensive fluorescence imaging solutions. Ms. Licitra received a B.S. in Commerce from Rider College. We believe Ms. Licitra’s experience working for medical device companies and her knowledge of our company enable her to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

Timothy B. Petersen has served as a member of our board of directors since June 2016. Since April 2002, Mr. Petersen has been employed by Arboretum Ventures, Inc. As a Managing Director of the firm, his investments primarily target capital-efficient medical device, health IT and services companies. Mr. Petersen has led investments and held board seats for Arboretum in more than fifteen companies, including HealthMedia (acquired by Johnson & Johnson), Accuri Cytometers (acquired by BD), IntelliCyt (acquired by Sartorius) and Inogen. Mr. Petersen currently serves on the boards of Advanced ICU Care, Concerto Health, KFx Medical, MyHealthDirect, and Pear Therapeutics in addition to our Company. Mr. Petersen holds a B.A. in Economics from Williams College, an M.S. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and an M.B.A. from the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. We believe Mr. Petersen’s extensive investment experience in the healthcare industry and his experience as a public company director enable him to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

Mark A. Reiley, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since our inception in April 2008 and as our Chief Medical Officer from inception to September 2016. Dr. Reiley has also served as Chief Medical Officer of Reiley Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, since April 2014. Previously, Dr. Reiley was Chief Medical officer of Fixes-4-Kids, Inc. from March 2009 to October 2010. Prior to joining us, Dr. Reiley was the Chief Medical Officer of INBONE Technologies from December 2004 to April 2008, until its sale to Wright Medical Group in April 2008. From October 1990 to May 2007, Dr. Reiley was Chief Medical Officer of Kyphon Inc., a medical device company focused on the treatment of vertebral compression fractures of the spine, until its sale to Medtronic, Inc. (now Medtronic plc). During that period, from October 2001 to March 2005, Dr. Reiley was Chief Medical officer of Archus Orthopedics Inc., a total facet replacement medical device company. Dr. Reiley was also a founding member of Berkeley Orthopedics Surgical group, where he practiced for over 25 years and trained the students and faculty at the University of California at Berkeley. He has founded and served on the boards of various private companies. Dr. Reiley received a B.A. from Claremont Men’s College and an M.D. from George Washington University School of Medicine, and he completed both his orthopedic residency and fellowship at the University of California at San Francisco. We believe Dr. Reiley’s experience in the industry, his role as our former Chief Medical Officer, and his knowledge of our company enable him to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

Keith C. Valentine has served as a member of our board of directors since August 2015. Since June 2015, Mr. Valentine has also served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of SeaSpine Holdings Corporation. From January 2007 to January 2015, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer of NuVasive, Inc., a medical device company. From December 2004 to January 2007, he served as President of NuVasive. From January 2001 to December 2004, he held various senior executive roles in marketing, development and operations at NuVasive. Previously, Mr. Valentine served as Vice President of Marketing at ORATEC Interventions, Inc., a medical device company acquired by Smith & Nephew PLC, and

 

120


Table of Contents

spent eight years in various roles with Medtronic including Vice President of Marketing for the Thoracolumbar Division and Group Director for the BMP Biologics program, Interbody Sales Development, and International Sales and Marketing. Mr. Valentine received a B.B.A. in Management and Biomedical Sciences from Western Michigan University. We believe Mr. Valentine’s experience working for medical device companies and his knowledge of our company enable him to make valuable contributions to our board of directors.

Family Relationships

There are no family relationships among any of our directors or executive officers.

Director Independence

We intend to apply to have our common stock listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. The listing rules of this stock exchange generally require that a majority of the members of a listed company’s board of directors be independent within 12 months following the closing of an initial public offering. Our board of directors has determined that none of our non-employee directors has a relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director and that each of these directors is “independent” as that term is defined under the rules of the Nasdaq Global Market. The independent members of our board of directors will hold separate regularly scheduled executive session meetings at which only independent directors are present.

Audit committee members must also satisfy the independence rules in Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, Rule 10A-3 adopted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In order to be considered independent for purposes of Rule 10A-3, a member of an audit committee of a public company may not, other than in his or her capacity as a member of the audit committee, the board of directors, or any other board committee: accept, directly or indirectly, any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee from the listed company or any of its subsidiaries; or be an affiliated person of the listed company or any of its subsidiaries. Each of Messrs. Davis, Hinckley and Petersen qualify as an independent director pursuant to Rule 10A-3. We also intend to satisfy the audit committee independence requirement of the Nasdaq Global Market.

Board Composition

Our board of directors currently consists of nine members, who were elected pursuant to the provision of a voting agreement and the related provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. Under the terms of this voting agreement, the stockholders who are party to the voting agreement have agreed to vote their respective shares to elect: (1) two directors designated by the holders of a majority of the then outstanding shares of Series 2 common, one of which will be our chief executive officer, currently Mr. Dunn and Dr. Reiley; (2) one director designated by Skyline Venture Partners Qualified Purchaser Fund V, L.P., currently Dr. Freund; (3) one director designated by Montreux Equity Partners IV, LP which is currently vacant; (4) four directors approved by a majority of the members of our board of directors and at least one of whom has relevant industry experience relating to our business, currently Mr. Hinckley, Mr. Davis, Ms. Licitra and Mr. Valentine; (5) one director designated by OrbiMed Advisors LLC or OrbiMed Private Investments V, LP, currently Dr. Bonita; and (6) one director designated by Arboretum IV, LP, currently Mr. Petersen.

The provisions of this voting agreement will terminate upon the closing of this offering, after which there will be no further contractual obligations regarding the election of our directors. Our directors hold office until their successors have been elected and qualified or appointed, or the earlier of their death, resignation or removal.

Immediately after this offering, our board of directors will be divided into three classes with staggered three-year terms. At each annual meeting of stockholders, the successors to directors whose terms then expire

 

121


Table of Contents

will be elected to serve from the time of election and qualification until the third annual meeting following election. Our directors will be divided among the three classes as follows:

 

    the Class I directors will be Mr. Davis, Dr. Freund and Dr. Reiley their term will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2018;

 

    the Class II directors will be Dr. Bonita, Mr. Dunn and Mr. Hinckley their terms will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2019; and

 

    the Class III directors will be Mr. Petersen, Ms. Licitra and Mr. Valentine their terms will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2020.

Directors in a particular class will be elected for three-year terms at the annual meeting of stockholders in the year in which their terms expire. As a result, only one class of directors will be elected at each annual meeting of our stockholders, with the other classes continuing for the remainder of their respective three-year terms. Each director’s term continues until the election and qualification of his or her successor, or the earlier of his or her death, resignation or removal.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws that will be in effect upon the closing of this offering provide that only our board of directors can fill vacant directorships, including newly-created seats. Any additional directorships resulting from an increase in the authorized number of directors would be distributed among the three classes so that, as nearly as possible, each class would consist of one-third of the authorized number of directors.

The classification of our board of directors may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes in our control or management. See the section titled “Description of Capital Stock—Anti-Takeover Provisions—Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws Provisions.”

Board Oversight of Risk

One of the key functions of our board of directors is informed oversight of our risk management process. In particular, our board of directors is responsible for monitoring and assessing strategic risk exposure. Our executive officers are responsible for the day-to-day management of the material risks we face. Our board of directors administers its oversight function directly as a whole, as well as through various standing committees of our board of directors that address risks inherent in their respective areas of oversight. For example, our audit committee is responsible for overseeing the management of risks associated with our financial reporting, accounting and auditing matters; our compensation committee oversees the management of risks associated with our compensation policies and programs; and our nominating and corporate governance committee oversees the management of risks associated with director independence, conflicts of interest, composition and organization of our board of directors and director succession planning.

Board Committees

Our board of directors has established an audit committee, a compensation committee and a nominating and corporate governance committee. Our board of directors may establish other committees to facilitate the management of our business. Our board of directors and its committees set schedules for meeting throughout the year and can also hold special meetings and act by written consent from time to time, as appropriate. Our board of directors has delegated various responsibilities and authority to its committees as generally described below. The committees will regularly report on their activities and actions to the full board of directors. Each member of each committee of our board of directors qualifies as an independent director in accordance with the listing standards of the Nasdaq Global Market. Each committee of our board of directors has a written charter approved by our board of directors. Upon the closing of this offering, copies of each charter will be posted on our website at www.si-bone.com under the Investor Relations section. The inclusion of our website address in this prospectus does not include or incorporate by reference the information on our website into this prospectus. Members serve on these committees until their resignation or until otherwise determined by our board of directors.

 

122


Table of Contents

Audit Committee

Our audit committee consists of Messrs. Davis, Hinckley and Petersen, each of whom satisfies the independence requirements under the Nasdaq Global Market listing standards and Rule 10A-3(b)(1) of the Exchange Act. The chairman of our audit committee is Mr. Hinckley. Our board of directors has determined that each of Messrs. Davis, Hinckley and Petersen is an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning of SEC regulations. Our board of directors has also determined that each member of our audit committee has the requisite financial expertise required under the applicable requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market. In arriving at this determination, the board of directors has examined each audit committee member’s scope of experience and the nature of their employment in the corporate finance sector.

The primary purpose of the audit committee is to discharge the responsibilities of our board of directors with respect to our accounting, financial and other reporting and internal control practices and to oversee our independent registered public accounting firm. Specific responsibilities of our audit committee include:

 

    selecting a qualified firm to serve as the independent registered public accounting firm to audit our financial statements;

 

    helping to ensure the independence and performance of the independent registered public accounting firm;

 

    discussing the scope and results of the audit with the independent registered public accounting firm, and reviewing, with management and the independent accountants, our interim and year-end operating results;

 

    developing procedures for employees to submit concerns anonymously about questionable accounting or audit matters;

 

    reviewing our policies on risk assessment and risk management;

 

    reviewing related party transactions;

 

    obtaining and reviewing a report by the independent registered public accounting firm at least annually, that describes our internal quality-control procedures, any material issues with such procedures, and any steps taken to deal with such issues when required by applicable law; and

 

    approving (or, as permitted, pre-approving) all audit and all permissible non-audit service to be performed by the independent registered public accounting firm.

Compensation Committee

Our compensation committee consists of Dr. Bonita, Mr. Davis and Ms. Licitra, each of whom our board of directors has determined to be independent under the Nasdaq Global Market listing standards and the rules and regulations of the SEC, a “non-employee director” as defined in Rule 16b-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act and an “outside director” as that term is defined in Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The chairman of our compensation committee is Mr. Davis.

The primary purpose of our compensation committee is to discharge the responsibilities of our board of directors to oversee our compensation policies, plans and programs and to review and determine the compensation to be paid to our executive officers, directors and other senior management, as appropriate. Specific responsibilities of our compensation committee include:

 

    reviewing and approving, or recommending that our board of directors approve, the compensation of our executive officers;

 

    reviewing and recommending to our board of directors the compensation of our directors;

 

    reviewing and approving, or recommending that our board of directors approve, the terms of compensatory arrangements with our executive officers;

 

123


Table of Contents
    administering our stock and equity incentive plans;

 

    selecting independent compensation consul