1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In re RTI Surgical Derivative Litigation Case No. 1:20-cv-03347

VERIFIED AMENDED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT

REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 1 of 100 PageID #:461
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

I. NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION...............................................................1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................4

III. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................4

Plaintiffs...............................................................................................................................4

Nominal Defendant..............................................................................................................5

Defendants ...........................................................................................................................5

Non-Party Directors.............................................................................................................9

IV. DUTIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ............................................................9

A. Fiduciary Duties.......................................................................................................9

B. Code of Conduct ....................................................................................................10

C. Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers.........................................................11

V. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................13

A. Background............................................................................................................13

1. Overview of the Company.........................................................................13

2. Relevant Accounting Policies....................................................................14

B.

.............................................................................................15

C. The Individual Defendants Caused RTI to Issue Materially Misleading 

Statements..............................................................................................................25

D. The Truth Begins to Emerge..................................................................................57

1. RTI Reveals That Certain OEM Contracts Were Improperly 

Recorded ....................................................................................................57

2. RTI Restates its Financial Statements and Reports Material 

Weaknesses in its Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting .................60

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 2 of 100 PageID #:462
ii

3.

.............................................................................................71

E. The Director Defendants Caused the Company to Expend Significant 

Funds to Repurchase Its Stock...............................................................................78

F. Defendant Singer Sold Nearly $45,000 in RTI Stock While in 

Possession of Material Non-Public Information....................................................80

G. The Motion to Dismiss in the Securities Class Action Was Denied......................80

VI. DAMAGES TO THE COMPANY....................................................................................81

COUNT I ...........................................................................................................................87

COUNT II..........................................................................................................................88

COUNT III.........................................................................................................................88

COUNT IV.........................................................................................................................90

COUNT V..........................................................................................................................92

COUNT VI.........................................................................................................................93

COUNT VII.......................................................................................................................94

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................94

JURY DEMAND...............................................................................................................96

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 3 of 100 PageID #:463
687141 3 1

Plaintiffs Niall Campbell, Dave Summers, and Dominick De Filippis (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this derivative complaint for the 

benefit of nominal defendant, RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. n/k/a Surgalign Holdings, Inc. (“RTI”

or the “Company”), against certain current and former members of its Board of Directors (the 

“Board”) and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking to remedy defendants’

breaches of fiduciary duties, insider trading (i.e., Brophy claim), violations of Section 10(b) and 

14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), waste of corporate assets, and 

unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs’ allegations are based upon their personal knowledge as to 

themselves and their own acts, and upon information and belief, developed from the investigation 

and analysis by Plaintiffs’ counsel based on, among other things: (a) a review of publicly available 

information, including filings by RTI with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 

press releases, news reports, analyst reports, investor conference transcripts, publicly available 

filings in lawsuits, and matters of public record; (b) documents and information obtained pursuant 

to 8 Del. C. § 220 (“Section 220”); and the record in the related securities class action pending 

before this Court, , Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-01939 (the “Securities 

Class Action”).

I. NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

1. RTI is a global surgical implant company that provides surgeons with safe biologic, 

metal, and synthetic implants, which are used in sports medicine, general surgery, spine, 

orthopedic, and trauma procedures.

2. For fiscal years 2015 through 2018, RTI reported strong results and a consistent 

revenue recognition policy and affirmed the effectiveness of its internal control over financial 

reporting. On March 8, 2019, RTI Surgical Inc. acquired Paradigm Spine, LLC (“Paradigm”) and 

reorganized as RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc., the successor reporting company.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 4 of 100 PageID #:464
687141 3 2

3. Then, on January 13, 2020, the Company announced that it had reached an 

agreement to sell its original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) business for $490 million to 

Montagu Private Equity LLP (“Montagu”), subject to closing conditions and shareholder approval.

4. On March 16, 2020, after the market closed, RTI disclosed that it could not timely 

file its annual report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2019 due to ongoing investigations by the SEC and 

the Audit Committee regarding revenue recognition. Specifically, the investigation concerned the 

timing of revenue with respect to certain contractual arrangements, primarily with OEM 

customers.

5. On this news, RTI’s stock price fell $0.40 per share, nearly 15%, to close at $2.35 

per share on March 17, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

6. Days later, the Company disclosed that, due to the failure to timely file a proxy 

statement with the SEC, RTI was in breach of the agreement with Montagu to sell the OEM 

business. 

7. On April 9, 2020, the Company revealed that financial statements for fiscal years 

2014 through 2018 should no longer be relied upon and would be restated. RTI disclosed that 

“goods were delivered early without obtaining the customers’ affirmative approval,” thus leading 

to improper revenue recognition, and that improper adjustments had been made for product returns.

8. On April 29, 2020, the Company announced certain amendments to its agreement 

to sell the OEM business, including, among other things, a $50 million reduction in the purchase 

price.

9. On June 8, 2020, RTI filed its restated financial statements for the previously 

disclosed periods, impacting various line items including revenue, operating expenses, accounts 

receivable, inventories, and accounts payable. RTI also identified material weaknesses, including 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 5 of 100 PageID #:465
687141 3 3

that “the tone from executive management was insufficient to create the proper environment for 

effective internal control over financial reporting” and that “the Company’s formal SOX 

compliance program did not have sufficient scope and focus on the key financial reporting risks.” 

10. The same day, the Company filed its belated 2019 annual report, which restated

certain financial items that were previously reported in quarterly reports for fiscal 2019. It further 

identified “errors [that] were made in connection with the recording of the acquisition of Paradigm 

Spine, LLC in 2019.”

11. Moreover, while the material information regarding revenue recognition with 

respect to OEM customers remained non-public, RTI spent an aggregate $4.5 million to repurchase 

approximately 1,006,318 shares of its own common stock at artificially inflated prices. As the 

Company’s stock was actually worth only $2.35, the price at the close of market on March 17, 

2020, the Company overpaid for the purchases of its own stock by approximately $2.1 million. 

12. On March 16, 2021, RTI filed its annual report for fiscal year 2020, admitting that 

the material weaknesses leading to the restatement had not been remediated. According to the 

report “[r]emediation of the identified material weaknesses and strengthening our internal control 

environment will require a substantial effort throughout 2021.”

13. These revelations precipitated the filing of the Securities Class Action in the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against RTI and certain of its officers. 

14. On April 1, 2021, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly issued an order in the 

Securities Class Action denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the order, Judge Kennelly held 

that a claim for securities fraud had been stated against RTI and certain of its officers. It is now a 

virtual certainty that RTI will incur significant liability due to the fiduciary breaches committed 

by defendants when they issued misleading statements about the Company’s financial results.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 6 of 100 PageID #:466
687141 3 4

15. Plaintiffs did not make a litigation demand prior to filing this action because such 

demand would have been futile based upon the composition of the Board and the actions taken by 

the Board. When this action was filed, the Board was composed of ten directors, eight of whom 

are named in this action. As alleged herein, at least eight directors knew the disclosures with 

respect to RTI’s revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its internal controls were incomplete 

or inaccurate, yet allowed misleading statements to be disseminated. Thus, more than half the 

members would be interested in a demand to investigate their own wrongdoing. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this 

Complaint states a federal question: violations of Section 14(a) and 10(b) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted 

herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This action is not a collusive one to confer jurisdiction on 

a court of the United States which it would not otherwise have.

17. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1401 because a 

substantial portion of the transactions and wrongs complained of herein occurred in this District, 

and the Defendants have received substantial compensation in this district by engaging in 

numerous activities that had an effect in this District.

III. PARTIES

Plaintiffs

18. Niall Campbell purchased 15 shares of RTI stock in June 2012 and has continuously 

owned his RTI stock since that date.

19. Dave Summers purchased 500 shares of RTI stock in July 2017 and has 

continuously owned his RTI stock since that date.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 7 of 100 PageID #:467
687141 3 5

20. Dominick De Filippis purchased 500 shares of RTI stock in June 2015 and has 

continuously owned his RTI stock since that date.

Nominal Defendant

21. RTI is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 520 

Lake Cook Road, Suite 315, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. The Company stock trades on the 

NASDAQ stock exchange under the symbol “RTIX.”

Defendants

22. Camille I. Farhat (“Farhat”) has served as RTI’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”),

President and a director from March 2017 to July 2020. Farhat is named as a defendant in the 

Securities Class Action. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, Farhat received $1,219,629 

in compensation from RTI: $651,119 in salary, $550,383 in non-equity incentive plan 

compensation, and $18,127 in all other compensation. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 

2019, he received $690,184 in compensation from RTI: $664,148 in salary and $26,036 in all other 

compensation.

23. Brian K. Hutchison (“Hutchison”) served as RTI’s CEO and President from 

December 2001 to December 2016. Hutchison is named as a defendant in the Securities Class 

Action. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, Hutchison received $1,388,802 in 

compensation from RTI: $590,796 in salary, $600,000 in stock awards, $150,000 in option awards, 

$25,150 in nonqualified deferred compensation earnings, and $22,856 in all other compensation.

24. Jonathon M. Singer (“Singer”) has served as RTI’s Chief Financial and 

Administrative Officer (“CFAO”) since September 2017 and as Corporate Secretary since 

November 2017. On January 10, 2020, Singer was promoted to serve as Chief Operating Officer 

(“COO”), contingent and effective upon the Company’s proposed sale of its OEM business. He 

served as a director of RTI from May 2016 to September 2017. Singer is named as a defendant in 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 8 of 100 PageID #:468
687141 3 6

the Securities Class Action. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, Singer received 

$2,188,311 in compensation from RTI: $450,000 in salary, $1 million bonus, $247,350 in stock 

awards, $247,487 in option awards, $223,763 in non-equity incentive plan compensation, and 

$19,711 in all other compensation. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, Singer received 

$1,003,652 in compensation from RTI: $460,347 in salary, $514,798 in stock awards, and $28,507 

in all other compensation.

25. Robert P. Jordheim (“Jordheim”) served as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer 

(“CFO”) and Executive Vice President from June 2010 to December 16, 2016 and from March 15, 

2017 to October 31, 2017. He also served as interim President and CEO from December 16, 2016

to March 15, 2017. Jordheim is named as a defendant in the Securities Class Action. For the fiscal 

year ended December 31, 2017, Jordheim received $1,009,489 in compensation from RTI: 

$335,499 in salary, $53,920 in bonus, $140,000 in stock awards, $140,099 in option awards, and 

$339,972 in all other compensation.

26. Johannes W. Louw (“Louw”) served as the Company’s Vice President of Financial 

Planning and Analysis from September 2018 to April 2020, when he was terminated from the 

Company. Louw served as interim CFO from December 2016 to March 2017. On January 10, 

2020, he was promoted to CFO, contingent and effective upon the Company’s proposed sale of its 

OEM business. After joining RTI in June 2003, he served in various roles, including interim CFO 

and Vice President of Finance and Corporate Controller. Louw is named as a defendant in the 

Securities Class Action. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, Louw received $460,132 

in compensation from RTI: $236,187 in salary, $64,525 in stock awards, $64,636 in option awards, 

$72,807 in non-equity incentive plan compensation, and $319 in all other compensation.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 9 of 100 PageID #:469
687141 3 7

27. Peter F. Gearen (“Gearen”) served as a director of the Company from 1998 to 

March 2019. He served as Vice Chairman of the Board from February 2016 to March 2019. For 

the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, Gearen received $130,000 in compensation from the 

Company, including $55,000 in fees earned or paid in cash and $75,000 in stock awards. For the 

fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, Gearen received $35,179 in compensation from RTI, 

consisting entirely of fees earned or paid in cash.

28. Thomas A. McEachin (“McEachin”) has served as a director of the Company since 

December 2015. He is Chair of the Audit Committee. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 

2018, McEachin received $135,000 in compensation from the Company, including $60,000 in fees 

earned or paid in cash and $75,000 in stock awards. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, 

McEachin received $167,500 in compensation from the Company, including $67,500 in fees 

earned or paid in cash and $100,000 in stock awards.

29. Curtis M. Selquist (“Selquist”) served as a director of the Company from July 2013 

to July 2020 and as Chairman of the Board from February 2016 to July 2020. For the fiscal year 

ended December 31, 2018, Selquist received $175,000 in compensation from RTI, including 

$100,000 in fees earned or paid in cash and $75,000 in stock awards. For the fiscal year ended 

December 31, 2019, he received $207,500 in compensation from RTI, including $107,500 in fees 

earned or paid in cash and $100,000 in stock awards.

30. Mark D. Stolper (“Stolper”) has served as a director of the Company since March 

2017. He is a member of the Audit and Compensation Committees. For the fiscal year ended 

December 31, 2018, Stolper received $132,500 in compensation from RTI, including $57,500 in 

fees earned or paid in cash and $75,000 in stock awards. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 10 of 100 PageID #:470
687141 3 8

2019, he received $165,000 in compensation from RTI, including $65,000 in fees earned or paid 

in cash and $100,000 in stock awards.

31. Christopher R. Sweeney (“Sweeney”) served as a director of the Company from

October 2015 to July 2020. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, Sweeney received 

$115,000 in compensation from RTI, including $40,000 in fees earned or paid in cash and $75,000 

in stock awards. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, he received $147,500 in 

compensation from RTI, including $47,500 in fees earned or paid in cash and $100,000 in stock 

awards.

32. Paul G. Thomas (“Thomas”) has served as a director of the Company since June 

2016. He is a member of the Compensation Committee. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 

2018, Thomas received $128,131 in compensation from RTI, including $53,131 in fees earned or 

paid in cash and $75,000 in stock awards. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, he 

received $162,898 in compensation from RTI, including $62,898 in fees earned or paid in cash 

and $100,000 in stock awards.

33. Nicholas J. Valeriani (“Valeriani”) has served as a director of the Company since 

June 2016. He is a member of the Compensation Committee. For the fiscal year ended December 

31, 2018, Valeriani received $127,500 in compensation from RTI, including $52,500 in fees 

earned or paid in cash and $75,000 in stock awards. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, 

he received $160,000 in compensation from RTI, including $60,000 in fees earned or paid in cash 

and $100,000 in stock awards.

34. Shirley A. Weis (“Weis”) served as a director of the Company from October 2014

to May 2021. She served as a member of the Audit Committee until 2019. For the fiscal year 

ended December 31, 2018, Weis received $142,913 in compensation from RTI, including $67,913 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 11 of 100 PageID #:471
687141 3 9

in fees earned or paid in cash and $75,000 in stock awards. For the fiscal year ended December 

31, 2019, she received $168,297 in compensation from RTI, including $68,297 in fees earned or 

paid in cash and $100,000 in stock awards.

35. Farhat, Hutchison, Singer, Jordheim, Louw, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis are sometimes referred to hereinafter as the “Individual 

Defendants.” Defendants Farhat, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, 

Valeriani, and Weis are sometimes referred to hereinafter as the “Director Defendants.”

Non-Party Directors

36. Jeffrey C. Lightcap (“Lightcap”) has served as a director of the Company since 

March 8, 2019. 

37. Stuart F. Simpson (“Simpson”) has served as a director of the Company since June 

1, 2020.

IV. DUTIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

A. Fiduciary Duties

38. By reason of their positions as officers, directors, and/or fiduciaries of RTI and 

because of their ability to control the business and corporate affairs of RTI, at all relevant times, 

the Individual Defendants owed RTI and its shareholders fiduciary obligations of good faith, 

loyalty, and candor, and were required to use their utmost ability to control and manage RTI in a 

fair, just, honest, and equitable manner. The Individual Defendants were required to act in 

furtherance of the best interests of RTI and its shareholders so as to benefit all shareholders equally 

and not in furtherance of their personal interest or benefit. Each director and officer of the 

Company owes to RTI and its shareholders a fiduciary duty to exercise good faith and diligence 

in the administration of the affairs of the Company and in the use and preservation of its property 

and assets, and the highest obligations of fair dealing.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 12 of 100 PageID #:472
687141 3 10

39. The Individual Defendants, because of their positions of control and authority as 

directors and/or officers of RTI, were able to and did, directly and/or indirectly, exercise control 

over the wrongful acts complained of herein. Because of their advisory, executive, managerial, 

and directorial positions with RTI, each of the Individual Defendants had knowledge of material 

non-public information regarding the Company.

40. To discharge their duties, the officers and directors of RTI were required to exercise 

reasonable and prudent supervision over the management, policies, practices and controls of the 

Company. By virtue of such duties, the officers and directors of RTI were required to, among 

other things:

(a) Exercise good faith to ensure that the affairs of the Company were 

conducted in an efficient, business-like manner so as to make it possible to 

provide the highest quality performance of their business;

(b) Exercise good faith to ensure that the Company was operated in a diligent, 

honest, and prudent manner and complied with all applicable federal and 

state laws, rules, regulations, and requirements, and all contractual 

obligations, including acting only within the scope of its legal authority; 

(c) Exercise good faith to ensure that the Company’s communications with the 

public and with shareholders are made with due candor in a timely and 

complete fashion; and

(d) When put on notice of problems with the Company’s business practices and 

operations, exercise good faith in taking appropriate action to correct the 

misconduct and prevent its recurrence.

B. Code of Conduct

41. RTI has a Code of Conduct, which requires the Company’s officers, directors and 

employees to adhere to “principles and standards of business conduct . . . to avoid even the 

appearance of improper behavior.”

42. The Code of Conduct provides that each employee must “[p]rovide full, fair, 

accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 13 of 100 PageID #:473
687141 3 11

with or submits to the Securities and Exchange Commission and in other public communications 

made by the Company.”

43. The Code of Conduct further provides that each employee must “[r]ecognize and 

report possible violations of this Code, as well as all policies, guidelines, applicable laws and 

regulatory requirements under which the Company operates.”

44. The Code of Conduct also provides that RTI is committed to “offer only those 

products and services that we can deliver and strive to meet or exceed the commitments that we 

made. We compete fairly, engaging only in legal and ethical practice. Lastly, we meet our 

contractual obligations by reporting information accurately and charging honestly for our products 

and services.”

45. In a section titled, “Securities Trading & Insider Information,” the Code of Conduct 

states that:

Company policy forbids unauthorized disclosure of material non-public 

information about the Company or the companies it deals with, and both Company 

policy and the law forbid profiting from material non- public information relating 

to the Company or the companies with whom we do business. Material information 

includes any information that a reasonable investor is likely to consider important 

in determining whether to buy, sell or hold the Company’s stock.

C. Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers

46. The Code of Conduct also requires “senior executive officers and those responsible 

for our financial reporting” to adhere to “the Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers which 

imposes strict obligations on them to take careful steps to assure that the Company properly tracks 

and reports our financial performance.”

47. The Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers (the “Code of Ethics”) aims to 

ensure “proper disclosure of financial information in filings with, or submissions to, the Securities 

and Exchange Commission and to deter wrongdoing.” The Code of Ethics is “applicable to the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 14 of 100 PageID #:474
687141 3 12

Company’s Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer, Director of 

Finance/Controller and other senior financial professional performing similar functions (‘Senior 

Financial Professionals’).” The Code of Ethics “is intended to supplement the [Code of Conduct] 

that is applicable to all employees and directors of the Company.”

48. In addition to promoting “a culture of honesty, integrity, ethical behavior and 

accountability,” Senior Financial Professionals must maintain accurate records. Specifically, the 

Code of Ethics states, in relevant part:

Senior Financial Professionals shall maintain all Company accounting records and 

reports derived from Company accounting records in accordance with applicable 

laws, in a manner that fairly and accurately reflects the transactions or occurrences 

to which they relate and ensures that the Company accounting records fairly and 

accurately reflect in reasonable detail the Company’s assets, liabilities, revenues 

and expenses and do not contain any false or intentionally misleading entries. In 

this regard, compliance with the Company’s system of internal controls is required 

at all times.

49. Moreover, under the heading “Disclosure in SEC Filings and Other Public 

Communications,” the Code of Ethics states that: 

Senior Financial Professionals shall conduct themselves in a manner that promotes 

the full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure of all material 

information required to be included in: (1) each report or other document the 

Company files with, or submits to, the SEC and (2) in all other public 

communications made by the Company. To this end, the Senior Financial 

Professionals will establish and apply the Company’s internal controls and 

disclosure controls and procedures in a manner that will enable the Company’s 

financial statements to present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, 

results of operations and cash flows of the Company.

50. In a section titled “Compliance with Applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations,” the 

Code of Ethics states that: 

The Senior Financial Professionals shall conduct themselves, and shall encourage 

all employees to conduct themselves, to ensure and facilitate compliance by the 

Company with the laws, rules and regulations applicable to its business. To this 

end, they are charged with overseeing the Company’s various programs and 

policies concerning: (1) the “Whistleblower Protection” provisions of the SarbanesCase: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 15 of 100 PageID #:475
687141 3 13

Oxley Act and similar laws applicable to the Company and (2) identifying and 

promptly reporting to the Audit Committee and correcting any material deviation 

from applicable laws, rules and regulations and Company policies.

51. The Code of Ethics further provides that “Senior Financial Professionals are 

required to report to the Audit Committee any known or suspected violation of this Code by any 

Senior Financial Professional.”

V. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

A. Background

1. Overview of the Company

52. RTI is a global surgical implant company that provides surgeons with safe biologic, 

metal, and synthetic implants, which are used in sports medicine, general surgery, spine, 

orthopedic, and trauma procedures.

53. On March 8, 2019, RTI Surgical, Inc. acquired Paradigm, a motion preservation 

and non-fusion spinal implant technology company, and reorganized as RTI Surgical Holdings, 

Inc. Thereafter, RTI Surgical, Inc. became a wholly owned subsidiary of RTI Surgical Holdings, 

Inc., the successor reporting company.

54. Prior to the fourth quarter of 2019, RTI operated as one reporting segment 

comprised of four franchise lines: spine, sports, OEM, and international. OEM, which accounts 

for the largest percentage of the Company’s total revenues, focuses on the design, development, 

and manufacture of biologic, metal, and synthetic implants for medical technology companies. 

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, OEM accounted for 43% of RTI’s total revenues. 

In the fourth quarter of 2019, the Company reorganized to operate under two operating segments: 

Global Spine and Global OEM. The Global Spine segment focuses on sales, distribution, and 

research and development activities for the global spine market, whereas the Global OEM segment 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 16 of 100 PageID #:476
687141 3 14

focuses on the design, development, and manufacturing of biologics and hardware medical 

technology.

55. Despite reporting record results for the OEM business in second quarter 2019, the 

Company announced on January 13, 2020 that it had agreed to sell its OEM Business to Montagu, 

a private European equity firm, for $490 million. Following the sale, RTI would become a “Global 

Pure Play Spine Company.” The transaction was unanimously approved by RTI’s Board and 

subject to shareholder approval. According to the press release announcing the transaction, the 

sale “complete[d] the first phase of [RTI’s] strategic transformation to reduce complexity, drive 

operational excellence and accelerate the growth of RTI.”

2. Relevant Accounting Policies

56. Companies are required to report their financial results in accordance with generally 

accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), which are the conventions, rules, and procedures 

promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”). Financial statements filed 

with the SEC that are not in compliance with GAAP are presumed to be misleading and inaccurate. 

See SEC Regulation S-X, 17 C.F.R. § 210.4-01(a)(1).

57. Pursuant to Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 250, Accounting Changes 

and Error Corrections, an entity must issue a restatement to correct an error in previously issued 

financial statements. Specifically:

1

An error in recognition, measurement, presentation, or disclosure in financial 

statements resulting from mathematical mistakes, mistakes in the application of 

generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), or oversight or misuse of facts 

that existed at the time the financial statements were prepared. A change from an 

accounting principle that is not generally accepted to one that is generally accepted 

is a correction of an error.

1 Unless otherwise stated, all emphasis in bold and italics hereinafter is added.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 17 of 100 PageID #:477
687141 3 15

B.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 18 of 100 PageID #:478
687141 3 16

63.

64.

65.

66.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 19 of 100 PageID #:479
687141 3 17

67.

68.

69.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 20 of 100 PageID #:480
687141 3 18

70.

71.

72.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 21 of 100 PageID #:481
687141 3 19

73.

74.

75.

76.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 22 of 100 PageID #:482
687141 3 20

77.

78.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 23 of 100 PageID #:483
687141 3 21

79.

80.

81.

82.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 24 of 100 PageID #:484
687141 3 22

83.

84.

85.

86.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 25 of 100 PageID #:485
687141 3 23

87.

 

 

88.

89.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 26 of 100 PageID #:486
687141 3 24

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 27 of 100 PageID #:487
687141 3 25

96.

C. The Individual Defendants Caused RTI to Issue Materially Misleading 

Statements

97. On March 7, 2016, Hutchison, Jordheim, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Sweeney, 

and Weis caused RTI to file its annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC for the period ended 

December 31, 2015 (the “2015 10-K”). The report was signed by defendants Hutchison, Jordheim, 

Selquist, Gearen, McEachin, Sweeney, and Weis, and non-parties Dean H. Bergy, Philip R. 

Chapman, and Adrian J.R. Smith. Regarding RTI’s policy for revenue recognition, the 2015 10-

K stated, in relevant part:

Revenue Recognition—Revenue is recognized upon shipping, or receipt by the 

Company’s customers of the implant, depending on the Company’s distribution 

agreements with the Company’s customers or distributors. Other revenues are 

recognized when all significant contractual obligations have been satisfied. 

The Company permits returns of implants in accordance with the terms of 

contractual agreements with customers if the implant is returned in a timely manner, 

in unopened packaging, and from the normal channels of distribution. Allowances 

for returns are provided based upon analysis of the Company’s historical patterns 

of returns matched against the revenues from which they originated.

The Company records estimated implant returns, discounts, rebates and other 

distribution incentives as a reduction of revenue in the same period revenue is 

recognized. Estimates of implant returns are recorded for anticipated implant 

returns based on historical distributions and returns information. Estimates of 

discounts, rebates and other distribution incentives are recorded based on 

contractual terms, historical experience and trend analysis.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 28 of 100 PageID #:488
687141 3 26

98. The 2015 10-K reported that “total revenues increased $19.5 million, or 7.4%, to 

$282.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to $262.8 million for the year 

ended December 31, 2014.” The year-over-year increase was purportedly “impacted due to a 

significant amount of [RTI’s] revenue being derived from large commercial stocking distributors, 

whose timing of orders can vary from year to year.”

99. The 2015 10-K stated that RTI’s “management believes that, as of December 31, 

2015, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective.” Moreover, the 2015 

10-K contained certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) signed by 

Hutchison and Jordheim, attesting to the accuracy of the financial statements contained therein, 

the disclosure of all fraud, and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial 

reporting. 

100. The statements in the 2015 10-K were materially misleading because they failed to 

disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward 

revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal 

control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the 

accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and 

procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely 

to restate its financial statements.

101. On April 28, 2016, Hutchison, Jordheim, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Sweeney, 

and Weis caused RTI to issue a press release announcing its first quarter 2016 financial results, 

stating in relevant part:

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 29 of 100 PageID #:489
687141 3 27

Worldwide revenues were $67.4 million for the first quarter of 2016 compared to 

revenues of $68.0 million for the first quarter of 2015. For the first quarter of 

2015, the company benefited from $1.5 million in non-recurring accelerated 

deferred revenue recognition due to loss of exclusivity by its commercial distributor 

in the breast reconstruction market. Domestic revenues were $61.2 million for the 

first quarter of 2016 compared to revenues of $62.7 million for the first quarter 

of 2015. International revenues were $6.2 million for the first quarter of 2016, 

compared to revenues of $5.3 million for the first quarter of 2015. On a constant 

currency basis, international revenues for the first quarter of 2016 increased 18 

percent compared to the first quarter of 2015.

102. The statements in ¶ 101 were materially misleading because they failed to disclose: 

(1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily for OEM 

customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) that 

unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward revenue 

from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control 

over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the 

accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and 

procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely 

to restate its financial statements.

103. On April 28, 2016, the Company held a conference call to discuss the first quarter 

2016 financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, Hutchison stated that “we’ve 

seen revenue from our commercial business ebb and flow from year-to-year, but trending to growth 

long-term. In fact, from 2005 through today, our commercial business has achieved compound 

average annual growth rate of 7%.”

104. The statements in ¶ 103 were materially misleading because they failed to disclose: 

(1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily for OEM 

customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) that 

unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward revenue 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 30 of 100 PageID #:490
687141 3 28

from a future quarter; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate 

its financial statements.

105. On May 4, 2016, Hutchison, Jordheim, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Sweeney, and 

Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 

(the “1Q16 10-Q”). It was signed by defendants Hutchison and Jordheim. It stated, in relevant 

part: “Our total revenues decreased by $683,000, or 1.0%, to $67.4 million for the three months 

ended March 31, 2016 compared to $68.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015.” It 

also stated that “the design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure controls and procedures were 

effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

106. The statements in ¶ 105 were materially misleading because they failed to disclose: 

(1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily for OEM 

customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) that 

unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward revenue 

from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control 

over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the 

accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and 

procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely 

to restate its financial statements.

107. On July 27, 2016, Hutchison, Jordheim, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Sweeney, and 

Weis caused RTI to issue a press release announcing its second quarter 2016 financial results, 

stating in relevant part:

Worldwide revenues were $67.6 million for the second quarter of 2016 compared 

to revenues of $71.6 million for the second quarter of 2015. Domestic revenues 

were $61 million for the second quarter of 2016 compared to revenues of $66 

million for the second quarter of 2015. International revenues were $6.6 million 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 31 of 100 PageID #:491
687141 3 29

for the second quarter of 2016, compared to revenues of $5.6 million for the second 

quarter of 2015. On a constant currency basis, international revenues for the second 

quarter of 2016 increased 16 percent compared to the second quarter of 2015.

108. On July 27, 2016, RTI held a conference call to discuss the second quarter 2016 

financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, defendant Jordheim stated that 

“[g]lobal commercial revenue of $24.8 million for the second quarter of 2016 decreased 27% 

compared to the second quarter of 2015, due to lower orders from certain commercial distributors 

primarily in the spine, trauma, and dental markets.” An analyst clarified, “[r]egarding the 

commercial business, is it one partner that you’re having some issues with, or is it a couple of 

them?” Defendant Jordheim replied:

It’s actually – it's primarily one partner. It’s our commercial distributor in the 

trauma and dental businesses. With the major acquisitions made last year by this 

particular commercial partner, the 2015 inventory balance, they've ordered a lot of 

product from us in an anticipation of our sell-through opportunities or 

crossselling opportunities. Those cross-selling opportunities have been slower 

than expected to materialize. So net-net in 2015, the orders were higher than they 

probably should have been and we're feeling the impact of that in 2016. 

109. The above statements on July 27, 2016 were materially misleading because they 

failed to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, 

primarily for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized 

approval; (2) that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling 

forward revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s 

internal control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries 

and the accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls 

and procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably 

likely to restate its financial statements.

110. On August 4, 2016, Hutchison, Jordheim, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 32 of 100 PageID #:492
687141 3 30

ended June 30, 2016 (the “2Q16 10-Q”). It was signed by defendants Hutchison and Jordheim. 

Regarding revenues, the 2Q16 10-Q stated, in relevant part:

Our total revenues decreased by $4.0 million, or 5.6%, to $67.6 million for the 

three months ended June 30, 2016 compared to $71.6 million for the three 

months ended June 30, 2015. Our direct revenues increased by $5.3 million, or 

15.6%, to $39.6 million, offset by our global commercial revenues which decreased 

by $9.2 million, or 27.1%, to $24.8 million. Our global commercial revenue 

comparisons are impacted due to a significant amount of our revenue being derived 

from large global commercial stocking distributors, whose timing of orders can 

vary from quarter to quarter. These ordering patterns can result in significant unit 

volume variations, which can result in significant variation in quarter over quarter 

comparisons. 

Global Commercial: Revenues from global commercial decreased $9.2 million, or 

27.1%, to $24.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2016 compared to 

$34.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015. Global commercial 

revenues decreased primarily as a result of lower orders from certain commercial 

distributors, primarily in the dental and trauma markets.

111. The 2Q16 10-Q also stated that “the design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure 

controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

112. The statements in the 2Q16 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward 

revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal 

control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the 

accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and 

procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely 

to restate its financial statements.

113. On October 25, 2016, Hutchison, Jordheim, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to announce its third quarter 2016 financial results in a 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 33 of 100 PageID #:493
687141 3 31

press release that stated, in relevant part: “Worldwide revenues were $66.5 million for the third 

quarter of 2016, which were comparable to revenues for the third quarter of 2015. Domestic 

revenues were $61 million for the third quarter of 2016, which were also comparable to revenues 

for the third quarter of 2015.” The press release further stated:

International revenues were $5.6 million for the third quarter of 2016, a slight 

increase compared to revenues of $5.5 million for the third quarter of 2015. On a 

constant currency basis, international revenues for the third quarter of 2016 

increased 2 percent compared to the third quarter of 2015. 

Direct revenues of $38.1 million increased 14 percent for the third quarter of 2016 

compared to $33.2 million for the third quarter of 2015. Commercial and other 

revenues of $28.5 million decreased 14 percent for the third quarter of 2016 

compared to $33.3 million for the third quarter of 2015.

114. On October 25, 2016, RTI held a conference call to discuss the third quarter 2016 

financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, defendant Hutchison stated that 14% 

growth in the direct business “was offset by declines in our commercial business, primarily due to 

lower orders from our commercial distributors in our spine and orthofixation product line.”

115. The above statements on October 25, 2016 were materially misleading because they 

failed to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, 

primarily for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized 

approval; (2) that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling 

forward revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s 

internal control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries 

and the accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls 

and procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably 

likely to restate its financial statements.

116. On November 7, 2016, Hutchison, Jordheim, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 34 of 100 PageID #:494
687141 3 32

the SEC for the period ended September 30, 2016 (the “3Q16 10-Q”). It was signed by defendants 

Hutchison and Jordheim. It stated, in relevant part:

Our total revenues of $66.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 

2016 were comparable to the three months ended September 30, 2015. Our direct 

revenues increased by $4.8 million, or 14.5%, to $38.1 million, offset by our global 

commercial revenues which decreased by $4.9 million, or 16.2%, to $25.3 million. 

Our global commercial revenue comparisons are impacted due to a significant 

amount of our revenue being derived from large global commercial stocking 

distributors, whose timing of orders can vary from quarter to quarter. These 

ordering patterns can result in significant unit volume variations, which can result 

in significant variation in quarter over quarter comparisons. In addition, global 

commercial revenues decreased primarily as a result of lower orders from certain 

commercial distributors, primarily in the spinal and trauma markets.

Global Commercial: Revenues from global commercial decreased $4.9 million, 

or 16.2%, to $25.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2016 

compared to $30.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2015. Global 

commercial revenues decreased primarily as a result of lower orders from certain 

commercial distributors, primarily in the spinal and trauma markets.

117. The 3Q16 10-Q also stated that “the design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure 

controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

118. The statements in the 3Q16 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward 

revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal 

control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the 

accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and 

procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely 

to restate its financial statements.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 35 of 100 PageID #:495
687141 3 33

119. On February 23, 2017, Jordheim, Louw, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to announce its fourth quarter 2016 financial 

results in a press release that stated, in relevant part:

Fourth Quarter 2016 Worldwide revenues were $71.3 million for the fourth 

quarter of 2016, a decrease of 6 percent, domestic revenues were $64.6 million, a 

decrease of 9 percent, and international revenues were $6.8 million, an increase 

of 24 percent from 2015’s fourth quarter. The decrease in domestic revenue was 

primarily due to lower orders in the commercial /other business in 2016 coming 

off a very strong 2015; partially offset by strong growth in the domestic direct 

businesses. The increase in international revenues was mainly driven by growth in 

Asia, primarily in Spine. 

Direct revenues were $44.5 million for the fourth quarter of 2016, an increase of 

22 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2015, with particular strength in 

Spine. RTI’s spine business continues to be one of the fastest-growing spine 

businesses in the U.S., primarily due to increases in surgeon users and distributor 

relationships. Commercial/other revenues were $26.8 million for the fourth 

quarter of 2016. 

120. Also on February 23, 2017, RTI held a conference call to discuss its fourth quarter 

2016 financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, Jordheim stated that “[t]he 

Board and management team have begun to strategically direct investments in the company toward 

areas where we see the greatest growth potential,” which had purportedly delivered results based 

on, among other things, “the signs of stabilization we are seeing in our commercial business.”

121. During the same call, defendant Louw stated that “[d]espite the decline, we saw 

signs of stabilization in the commercial/other business during the year as the commercial/other 

business averaged $28 million over the last four quarters of 2016.”

122. The above statements on February 23, 2017 were materially misleading because 

they failed to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer 

orders, primarily for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining 

authorized approval; (2) that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional 

revenue by pulling forward revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 36 of 100 PageID #:496
687141 3 34

in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy 

of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s 

disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, 

RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

123. On March 13, 2017, defendants Jordheim, Louw, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, 

Selquist, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its annual report on Form 10-

K with the SEC for the period ended December 31, 2016 (the “2016 10-K”), which was signed by 

these defendants. Regarding RTI’s revenue recognition policy, the 2016 10-K stated, in relevant 

part:

Revenue Recognition—Revenue is recognized upon shipping, or receipt by the 

Company’s customers of the implant, depending on the Company’s distribution 

agreements with the Company’s customers or distributors. Other revenues are 

recognized when all significant contractual obligations have been satisfied.

The Company permits returns of implants in accordance with the terms of 

contractual agreements with customers if the implant is returned in a timely manner, 

in unopened packaging, and from the normal channels of distribution. Allowances 

for returns are provided based upon analysis of the Company’s historical patterns 

of returns matched against the revenues from which they originated. 

The Company records estimated implant returns, discounts, rebates and other 

distribution incentives as a reduction of revenue in the same period revenue is 

recognized. Estimates of implant returns are recorded for anticipated implant 

returns based on historical distributions and returns information. Estimates of 

discounts, rebates and other distribution incentives are recorded based on 

contractual terms, historical experience and trend analysis. 

Other revenues consists of service processing, tissue recovery fees, biomedical 

laboratory fees, recognition of previously deferred revenues, shipping fees, 

distribution of reproductions of our allografts to distributors for demonstration 

purposes and restocking fees which is included in revenues.

124. The 2016 10-K stated that RTI’s “management believes that, as of December 31, 

2016, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective.” Moreover, the 2016 

10-K contained SOX certifications signed by Jordheim and Louw, attesting to the accuracy of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 37 of 100 PageID #:497
687141 3 35

financial statements contained therein, the disclosure of all fraud, and the effectiveness of the 

Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

125. The statements in the 2016 10-K were materially misleading because they failed to 

disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward 

revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal 

control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the 

accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and 

procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely 

to restate its financial statements.

126. On May 3, 2017, Jordheim, Louw, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with 

the SEC for the period ended March 31, 2017 (the “1Q17 10-Q”). It was signed by defendants 

Farhat and Jordheim and stated, in relevant part:

Total Revenues. Our total revenues of $69.9 million for the three months ended 

March 31, 2017, increased $2.6 million, or 3.8%, compared to $67.4 million for 

the three months ended March 31, 2016. Our direct revenues increased by $5.1 

million, or 13.3%, to $43.8 million, offset by our global commercial revenues 

which decreased by $1.7 million, or 6.9%, to $23.6 million. Our global commercial 

revenue comparisons are impacted due to a significant amount of our revenue being 

derived from large global commercial stocking distributors, whose timing of orders 

can vary from quarter to quarter. These ordering patterns can result in significant 

unit volume variations, which can result in significant variation in quarter over 

quarter comparisons. In addition, global commercial revenues decreased primarily 

as a result of lower orders from certain commercial distributors, primarily in the 

orthopedics and trauma markets. 

Global Commercial: Revenues from global commercial decreased $1.7 million, 

or 6.9%, to $23.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared 

to $25.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. Global commercial 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 38 of 100 PageID #:498
687141 3 36

revenues decreased primarily as a result of lower orders from certain commercial 

distributors, primarily in the orthopedics and trauma markets. 

127. The 1Q17 10-Q also stated that “the design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure 

controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

128. The statements in the 1Q17 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward 

revenue from a future quarter; (3) that, by expediting shipping and overloading commercial 

customers with orders, the Individual Defendant were responsible for the demand slowdown; (4) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (5) 

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

129. On August 8, 2017, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to announce its second quarter 2017 financial results in 

a press release that stated, in relevant part:

RTI worldwide revenues were $72.1 million for the second quarter of 2017, an 

increase of 7 percent. Direct revenues were $43.6 million for the second quarter of 

2017, an increase of 10 percent compared to the second quarter of 2016, with 

double-digit growth reported in RTI’s spine, surgical specialties and cardiothoracic 

direct business segments. Commercial/other revenues were $28.6 million for the 

second quarter of 2017, an increase of 2 percent compared to the second quarter 

of 2016.

130. In the same press release, defendant Farhat stated that “[o]ur Commercial business 

continues to stabilize, our direct business delivered another quarter of strong performance and our 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 39 of 100 PageID #:499
687141 3 37

Spine business continues to grow at above-market rates. We are encouraged by our strong second 

quarter results . . . .”

131. On August 8, 2017, RTI held a conference call to discuss the second quarter 2017 

financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, defendant Farhat stated that 

“commercial continues to stabilize and has returned to growth, the first time we have reported 

top line growth in this business in five quarters, and we intend to continue to work on improving 

its performance.” Likewise, Jordheim stated “[o]ur commercial business continues to stabilize 

and grew 4% in the second quarter. We are starting to see the results of our cost reduction 

initiatives.”

132. The statements on August 8, 2017 were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward 

revenue from a future quarter; (3) that revenue in the direct division had been inflated in July 2017 

through an improper $30,000 adjustment; (4) that there were material weaknesses in the 

Company’s internal control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of 

journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s 

disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, 

RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

133. On August 9, 2017, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period 

ended June 30, 2017 (the “2Q17 10-Q”). It was signed by defendants Farhat and Jordheim. It 

stated, in relevant part:

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 40 of 100 PageID #:500
687141 3 38

Total Revenues. Our total revenues of $72.1 million for the three months ended 

June 30, 2017, increased $4.5 million, or 6.7%, compared to $67.6 million for the 

three months ended June 30, 2016. Our direct revenues increased by $4.0 million, 

or 10.0%, to $43.6 million, and our global commercial revenues increased by $1.1 

million, or 4.3%, to $25.8 million. Our global commercial revenue comparisons are 

impacted due to a significant amount of our revenue being derived from large global 

commercial stocking distributors, whose timing of orders can vary from quarter to 

quarter. These ordering patterns can result in significant unit volume variations, 

which can result in significant variation in quarter over quarter comparisons. In 

addition, global commercial revenues increased primarily as a result of higher 

orders from certain commercial distributors, primarily in the dental and trauma 

markets. 

Global Commercial: Revenues from global commercial increased $1.1 million, or 

4.3%, to $25.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017, compared to $24.8 

million for the three months ended June 30, 2016. Global commercial revenues 

increased primarily as a result of higher orders from certain commercial 

distributors, primarily in the dental and trauma markets.

134. The 2Q17 10-Q also stated that “the design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure 

controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

135. The statements in the 2Q17 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward 

revenue from a future quarter; (3) that, by expediting shipping and overloading commercial 

customers with orders, the Individual Defendant were responsible for the demand slowdown; (4) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (5) 

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

136. On November 2, 2017, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to announce its third quarter 2017 financial 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 41 of 100 PageID #:501
687141 3 39

results in a press release that stated, in relevant part: “RTI generated $66.7 million in revenue, 

driven by growth in the company’s spine, commercial and international businesses. Earnings for 

the third quarter totaled $16.5 million.” 

137. The above statements on November 2, 2017 were materially misleading because 

they failed to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer 

orders, primarily for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining 

authorized approval; (2) that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional 

revenue by pulling forward revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses 

in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy 

of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s 

disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, 

RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

138. On November 3, 2017, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for 

the period ended September 30, 2017 (the “3Q17 10-Q”). It was signed by defendants Farhart and 

Singer. It stated, in relevant part:

Total Revenues: Our total revenues of $208.7 million for the nine months ended 

September 30, 2017, increased $7.2 million, or 3.6%, compared to $201.5 million 

for the nine months ended September 30, 2016. Our direct revenues increased by 

$8.3 million, or 7.2%, to $124.6 million due to increased distributions, offset 

primarily as a result of an estimated $1.2 million loss in revenue due to a hurricane 

in Florida, and our global commercial revenues increased by $829,000, or 1.1%, 

to $76.2 million, primarily as a result of higher orders from certain commercial 

distributors, primarily in the dental and trauma markets. 

139. The 3Q17 10-Q also stated that “the design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure 

controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 42 of 100 PageID #:502
687141 3 40

140. The statements in the 3Q17 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that unapproved shipments were shipped early to report additional revenue by pulling forward 

revenue from a future quarter; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal 

control over financial reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the 

accounting for sales returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and 

procedures were not effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely 

to restate its financial statements.

141. On March 2, 2018, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC for 

the period ended December 31, 2017 (the “2017 10-K”), which was signed by these defendants.

Regarding RTI’s revenue recognition policy, the 2017 10-K stated, in relevant part: 

Revenue Recognition—Revenue is recognized upon shipping, or receipt by the 

Company’s customers of the implant, depending on the Company’s distribution 

agreements with the Company’s customers or distributors. Other revenues are 

recognized when all significant contractual obligations have been satisfied.

The Company permits returns of implants in accordance with the terms of 

contractual agreements with customersif the implant is returned in a timely manner, 

in unopened packaging, and from the normal channels of distribution. Allowances 

for returns are provided based upon analysis of the Company’s historical patterns 

of returns matched against the revenues from which they originated.

The Company records estimated implant returns, discounts, rebates and other 

distribution incentives as a reduction of revenue in the same period revenue is 

recognized. Estimates of implant returns are recorded for anticipated implant

returns based on historical distributions and returns information. Estimates of 

discounts, rebates and other distribution incentives are recorded based on 

contractual terms, historical experience and trend analysis. 

Other revenues consist of service processing, tissue recovery fees, biomedical 

laboratory fees, recognition of previously deferred revenues, shipping fees, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 43 of 100 PageID #:503
687141 3 41

distribution of reproductions of our allografts to distributors for demonstration 

purposes and restocking fees which is included in revenues.

142. In addition, the 2017 10-K stated that the Company had adopted a five-step 

framework set forth by the FASB for revenue recognition. Specifically, the report stated, in 

relevant part:

Revenue from Contracts with Customers — In May 2014, the FASB, issued a new 

revenue recognition standard which amends revenue recognition principles and 

provides a single, comprehensive set of criteria for revenue recognition within and 

across all industries. The new standard provides a five-step framework whereby 

revenue is recognized when control of promised goods or services are transferred 

to a customer at an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects 

to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The standard also requires 

enhanced disclosures pertaining to revenue recognition in both interim and annual 

periods. In August 2015, the FASB deferred the effective date of the new revenue 

standard from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018. In March 2016, the FASB issued 

amendments to clarify the implementation guidance on principal versus agent 

considerations. In April 2016, the FASB issued amendments to clarify the guidance 

on accounting for licenses of intellectual property and identifying performance 

obligations. In May 2016, the FASB issued amendments related to collectability, 

non-cash consideration, the presentation of sales and other similar taxes collected 

from customers and transition. The standard allows for adoption using a full 

retrospective method or a modified retrospective method. On January 1, 2018, the 

Company adopted this standard using the modified retrospective method. The 

Company’s implementation approach included performing a detailed review of 

its agreements. The Company has reviewed all types of customer contracts and 

has gone through the five step process outlined in the new revenue recognition 

standard for each type of contract. The new five step process required by the new 

revenue recognition standard provides results substantially consistent with the 

Company’s current revenue recognition policies. In addition, the Company 

designed internal controls to enable the preparation of financial information. The 

Company is in the process of finalizing its conclusions on key accounting 

assessments related to the new standard, including its assessment that the impact of 

accounting for costs incurred to obtain a contract.

The Company identified two contracts which previously resulted in revenue 

recognition occurring at the time of shipment; however, under the new revenue 

recognition standard, the Company is required to recognize revenue over time. The 

Company currently estimates the impact of adopting the new revenue standard on 

the two contracts will result in a $1,800 to $2,200 reduction in accumulated deficit, 

the cumulative effect adjustment under the modified retrospective approach, a 

$2,500 to $3,000 increase in accounts receivable, and a $700 to $800 decrease in 

deferred tax assets. The Company also identified a contract that contains significant 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 44 of 100 PageID #:504
687141 3 42

upfront payments; however, the Company has not yet finalized its assessment of 

the contract. Except for the three contracts discussed above, the Company does not 

anticipate the finalization of this assessment will result in a material impact to the 

Company’s financial position, results of operations, and disclosures.

143. The 2017 10-K stated that RTI’s “management believes that, as of December 31, 

2017, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective.” Moreover, the 2017 

10-K contained SOX certifications signed by defendants Farhat and Singer, attesting to the 

accuracy of the financial statements contained therein, the disclosure of all fraud, and the 

effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

144. The statements in the 2017 10-K were materially misleading because they failed to 

disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (3) 

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

145. On March 26, 2018, Farhat, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis issued a definitive proxy statement soliciting stockholder votes in 

advance of the Company’s annual meeting to be held April 30, 2018. In the proxy statement, these 

nine directors solicited stockholder votes in favor of three management proposals, including: (i) a 

proposal to elect Farhat, Gearen, McEachin, Stolper, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis to new terms 

as directors; and (ii) a proposal to adopt the RTI Surgical Inc. 2018 Incentive Compensation Plan 

(the “2018 Plan”).

146. The proxy statement disclosed that the Board had determined that Farhat was not 

independent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 45 of 100 PageID #:505
687141 3 43

147. Regarding corporate governance and risk oversight, the proxy statement stated that

the full board was responsible for: 

Strategic, financial and execution risks and exposures associated with our business 

strategy, management succession planning, policy matters, significant litigation 

and regulatory exposures, and other current matters that may present material risk 

to our financial performance, operations, infrastructure, plans, prospects or 

reputation, mergers and acquisition activities and related integration matters, and 

divestitures.

148. Moreover, the proxy statement stated that McEachin, Stolper, and Weis served on 

the Audit Committee. Regarding the Audit Committee’s responsibilities, the proxy statement 

stated, in relevant part:

[The Audit Committee’s primary areas of oversight include:] Risks and exposures 

associated with financial matters, particularly financial reporting, tax, accounting, 

disclosure, internal control over financial reporting, financial infrastructure, 

investment guidelines and credit and liquidity matters. In addition, our programs 

and policies relating to legal and ethical compliance, quality, safety, environmental 

assurance and information technology security programs.

* * *

Our Audit Committee is charged with, among other things, the appointment of our 

independent registered public accounting firm, as well as discussing and reviewing 

with the independent registered public accounting firm the scope and the results of 

the annual audit, pre-approving the engagement of the independent registered 

public accounting firm for all audit-related services and permissible non-audit 

related services, and reviewing and approving all related-party transactions. Our 

Audit Committee also reviews interim financial statements included in our 

quarterly reports and reviews financial statements and related documents filed with 

the Securities and Exchange Commission.

149. Regarding non-employee director compensation, the proxy statement told 

stockholders that each of Gearen, McEachin, Singer, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis received 

compensation from RTI for their service on the Board during 2017 ranging between $125,000 and 

$136,250. In addition, Selquist received $175,000 in compensation, whereas Stolper and Sweeney 

received $102,000 and $115,000, respectively.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 46 of 100 PageID #:506
687141 3 44

150. In addition to this excessive compensation, the proxy statement solicited 

stockholder approval of the 2018 Plan. According to the proxy statement, the 2018 Plan is

administered by the Compensation Committee. Specifically, the proxy statement stated: 

The 2018 Plan is to be administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board, 

provided, however, that except as otherwise expressly provided in the 2018 Plan, 

the independent members of the Board may elect to exercise any power or authority 

granted to the Committee under the 2018 Plan. Subject to the terms of the 2018 

Plan, the Committee is authorized to select eligible persons to receive Awards, 

grant Awards, determine the type, number and other terms and conditions of, and 

all other matters relating to, Awards, prescribe Award agreements (which need not 

be identical for each participant) and the rules and regulations for the administration 

of the 2018 Plan, construe and interpret the 2018 Plan and Award agreements, 

correct defects, supply omissions or reconcile inconsistencies therein, and make all 

other decisions and determinations as the Committee may deem necessary or 

advisable for the administration of the 2018 Plan. Decisions of the Committee shall 

be final, conclusive and binding on all persons or entities, including the Company, 

any subsidiary or any participant or beneficiary, or any transferee under the 2018 

Plan or any other person claiming rights from or through any of the foregoing 

persons or entities.

151. If approved, the number of shares reserved for issuance under the 2018 Plan would 

be 5,738,142 shares, which represents 9.2% of the total number of shares outstanding as of March 

9, 2018.

152. The proxy statement was materially misleading for the following reasons: (i) it 

misrepresented the actual activities of the Board, as well as the Audit Committee, with respect to 

risk management and oversight while soliciting votes to reelect and compensate directors who 

were breaching their fiduciary duties; and (ii) it failed to disclose that each of the non-employee 

directors were interested in their own grants of discretionary compensation. A reasonable 

shareholder would have found the truth to be material when deciding whether to vote for or against 

these proposals.

153. On May 1, 2018, the Company filed with the SEC a Form 8-K disclosing the results 

from the votes on the proposals contained in the 2018 proxy statement. In particular: (i) Farhat, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 47 of 100 PageID #:507
687141 3 45

Gearen, McEachin, Stolper, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis were reelected to terms as directors; and 

(ii) the 2018 Plan was approved by stockholders. The reelection of Farhat, Gearen, McEachin, 

Stolper, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis and the approval of the 2018 Plan based on the misleading 

statements contained in the 2018 proxy statement and other public filings was a fundamental link 

in these directors’ continued breaches of fiduciary duties and their continued enrichment at the 

expense of the Company’s unaffiliated stockholders.

154. On May 3, 2018, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to announce its first quarter 2018 financial results in a 

press release that stated, in relevant part:

RTI’s worldwide revenues for the first quarter of 2018 were $69.9 million, 

comparable with the prior year first quarter. First quarter revenues were driven 

by growth in the OEM and International lines of business, which were partially 

offset by declines in Sports and Spine and a $3.2 million reduction from the sale of 

substantially all the assets of the cardiothoracic closure business completed in 

August 2017. Gross profit for the first quarter of 2018 was $33.7 million, or 48.2% 

of revenues, compared to $35.8 million, or 51.2% of revenues, in the first quarter 

of 2017. Gross profit for the first quarter of 2018 was impacted by an inventory 

charge of $1.0 million from the write-off of inventory related to our international 

restructuring and $0.2 million due to the purchase accounting step-up of Zyga 

inventory. 

155. On May 3, 2018, the Company held a conference call to discuss the first quarter 

2018 financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, defendant Farhat claimed that 

RTI “delivered revenue of approximately $69.9 million, which was driven by strong performance 

in [its] OEM and International franchises.”

156. The statements on May 3, 2018 were materially misleading because they failed to 

disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (3) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 48 of 100 PageID #:508
687141 3 46

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

157. On May 4, 2018, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC 

for the period ended March 31, 2018 (the “1Q18 10-Q”). It was signed by Farhat and Singer. It 

stated, in relevant part:

Total revenues - Our total revenues of $69.9 million for the three months ended 

March 31, 2018 was comparable to the three months ended March 31, 2017.

Excluding cardiothoracic revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2017, our 

total revenues increased $3.1 million, or 4.6%, primarily due to timing of delivery 

to certain OEM distributors, primarily in the dental and trauma markets. 

OEM - Revenues from OEM increased $5.0 million, or 19.8%, to $30.1 million 

for the three months ended March 31, 2018, compared to $25.1 million for the 

three months ended March 31, 2017. OEM revenues increased primarily as a 

result of higher orders and due to timing of delivery to certain OEM distributors, 

primarily in the dental and trauma markets.

158. The 1Q18 10-Q also stated that “the design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure 

controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

159. The statements in the 1Q18 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (3) 

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

160. On August 2, 2018, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to announce its second quarter 2018 financial results in 

a press release that stated “RTI’s worldwide revenues for the second quarter of 2018 were $70.7 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 49 of 100 PageID #:509
687141 3 47

million, down slightly compared with $72.1 million during the same period for the year. Excluding 

a $3.7 million reduction [related to the sale of certain assets], our total revenues increased $2.2 

million, or 3.3%.”

161. The statements on August 2, 2018 were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (3) 

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

162. On August 3, 2018, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period 

ended June 30, 2018 (the “2Q18 10-Q”). It was signed by defendants Farhat and Singer. It stated, 

in relevant part:

Total revenues - Our total revenues decreased $1.4 million, or 2.0%, to $70.7 

million for the three months ended June 30, 2018, compared to $72.1 million for 

the three months ended June 30, 2017. Excluding cardiothoracic revenues for the 

three months ended June 30, 2017, our total revenues increased $2.2 million, or 

3.3%, primarily due to timing of delivery to certain OEM distributors, primarily in 

the dental and trauma markets. 

OEM - Revenues from OEM increased $3.2 million, or 11.4%, to $31.2 million 

for the three months ended June 30, 2018, compared to $28.0 million for the three 

months ended June 30, 2017. OEM revenues increased primarily as a result of 

higher orders and due to timing of delivery to certain OEM distributors, primarily 

in the dental and trauma markets.

163. The 2Q18 10-Q also stated that “the design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure 

controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 50 of 100 PageID #:510
687141 3 48

164. The statements in the 2Q18 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (3) 

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

165. On November 1, 2018, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to announce its third quarter 2018 financial 

results in a press release that stated, in relevant part:

RTI’s worldwide revenues for the third quarter of 2018 were $69.1 million, 

compared with $66.7 million during the same period in the prior year. Excluding a

$1.3 million reduction from the sale of substantially all the assets of the 

Cardiothoracic Closure business completed in August 2017, total revenues 

increased $3.7 million, or 5.7%, driven by strong performance in both the spine and 

OEM franchises. Gross profit for the third quarter of 2018 was $37.7 million, or 

54.5% of revenues, a significant increase compared to $33.5 million, or 50.3% of 

revenues, in the third quarter of 2017.

* * *

Our OEM franchise continued its strong performance this quarter. Our team has 

done a tremendous job of getting closer to our customers, better understanding their 

needs and the direction of the market and focusing our operations accordingly to 

drive growth. The changes we have implemented are really paying off and our 

credit to all involved.

166. On November 1, 2018, RTI held a conference call to discuss the third quarter 2018 

financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, defendant Farhat stated that “we 

returned the OEM franchise to growth and made progress on our current spine portfolio . . . . 

[W]ith these initiatives now ingrained in our corporate culture, we are producing improved 

operational and financial performance.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 51 of 100 PageID #:511
687141 3 49

167. The statements on November 1, 2018 were materially misleading because they 

failed to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, 

primarily for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized 

approval; (2) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial 

reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales 

returns; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not 

effective; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial 

statements.

168. On November 7, 2018, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for 

the period ended September 30, 2018 (the “3Q18 10-Q”). It was signed by defendants Farhat and 

Singer and stated that total revenues “increased $2.4 million, or 3.6%, to $69.1 million for the 

three months ended September 30, 2018 . . . .” It also stated:

OEM - Revenues from OEM increased $1.3 million, or 4.6%, to $30.1 million for 

the three months ended September 30, 2018, compared to $28.8 million for the 

three months ended September 30, 2017. OEM revenues increased primarily as a 

result of higher orders and due to timing of delivery to certain OEM distributors, 

primarily in the dental and trauma markets. 

169. Regarding ASC 606, the 3Q18 10-Q stated: “Whereas previously, revenue and 

receivables were recorded at the time of shipment, they are now recorded over time.”

170. The 3Q18 10-Q also stated that “the design and operation of our disclosure controls 

and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.”

171. The statements in the 3Q18 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 52 of 100 PageID #:512
687141 3 50

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (3) 

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

172. On February 28, 2019, RTI held a conference call to discuss the fourth quarter 2018 

financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, Singer discussed the Paradigm 

acquisition, stating that “[e]verybody is very aligned on driving towards a successful integration 

and closing the deal with momentum.” He also stated “when we close this transaction, we’ll hit 

the ground running” and “we’ve done a tone of work and have had tremendous cooperation and 

collaboration. And so, we feel very good about where we’re positioned at the outset of the close.”

173. The above statements on February 28, 2019 were materially misleading because 

they failed to disclose: (1) that the Paradigm transaction was rife with serious errors relating to 

asset valuation and purchase accounting; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was 

reasonably likely to restate its financial statements.

174. On March 5, 2019, Farhat, Singer, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its annual report on Form 10-K for the period 

ended December 31, 2018 (the “2018 10-K”), which was signed by these defendants. Regarding 

RTI’s revenue recognition policy, the 2018 10-K stated, in relevant part:

Revenue Recognition—The Company recognizes revenue upon shipping, or 

receipt by the Company’s customers of its products and implants, depending on 

the Company’s distribution agreements with its customers or distributors. The 

Company’s performance obligations consist mainly of transferring control of 

implants identified in the contracts. The Company typically transfers control at a 

point in time upon shipment or delivery of the implants for direct sales, or upon 

implantation for sales of consigned inventory. The customer is able to direct the use 

of, and obtain substantially all of the benefits from, the implant at the time the 

implant is shipped, delivered, or implanted, respectively based on the terms of the 

contract. For performance obligations related to the Company’s contracts with 

exclusively built inventory clauses, the Company typically satisfies its performance 

obligations evenly over the contract term as inventory is built. Such exclusively 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 53 of 100 PageID #:513
687141 3 51

manufactured inventory has no alternative use and the Company has an enforceable 

right to payment for performance to date. The Company uses the input method to 

measure the manufacturing activities completed to date, which depicts the progress 

of the Company’s performance obligation of transferring control of exclusively 

built inventory. For the contracts with upfront and annual exclusivity fees, revenue 

related to those fees is recognized over the contract term following a consistent 

method of measuring progress towards satisfaction of the performance obligation. 

The Company uses the method and measure of progress that best depicts the 

transfer of control to the customer of the goods or services to date relative to the 

remaining goods or services promised under the contract.

The Company permits returns of implants in accordance with the terms of 

contractual agreements with customers if the implant is returned in a timely manner, 

in unopened packaging, and from the normal channels of distribution. Allowances 

for returns are provided based upon analysis of the Company’s historical patterns 

of returns matched against the revenues from which they originated.

The Company records estimated implant returns, discounts, rebates and other 

distribution incentives as a reduction of revenue in the same period revenue is 

recognized. Estimates of implant returns are recorded for anticipated implant 

returns based on historical distributions and returns information. Estimates of 

discounts, rebates and other distribution incentives are recorded based on 

contractual terms, historical experience and trend analysis. 

Other revenues consist of service processing, tissue recovery fees, biomedical 

laboratory fees, recognition of previously deferred revenues, shipping fees, 

distribution of reproductions of our allografts to distributors for demonstration 

purposes and restocking fees which is included in revenues.

175. Regarding revenue from contracts with customers, the 2018 10-K stated, in relevant 

part: 

Revenue from Contracts with Customers—On January 1, 2018, the Company 

adopted a new accounting standard issued by the FASB on revenue recognition 

using the modified retrospective method. This new accounting standard outlines a 

single comprehensive model to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts 

with customers. This standard supersedes existing revenue recognition 

requirements and eliminates most industry-specific guidance from GAAP. The core 

principle of the new accounting standard is to recognize revenue to depict the 

transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the 

consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods 

or services. In addition, the adoption of this new accounting standard resulted in 

increased disclosure, including qualitative and quantitative disclosures about the 

nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from 

contracts with customers. The new accounting standard was applied to all 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 54 of 100 PageID #:514
687141 3 52

contracts, apart from contracts for which all or substantially all revenue was 

recognized before January 1, 2018. Additionally, the Company elected to account 

for shipping and handling activities as a fulfillment cost rather than a separate 

performance obligation.

The Company identified three contracts which previously resulted in revenue 

recognition occurring at the time of shipment; however, under the new revenue 

recognition standard, the Company is required to recognize revenue over time. The 

assessment of our January 1, 2018, consolidated balance sheet under ASC Topic 

606 resulted in a cumulative-effect adjustment to opening retained earnings, 

unbilled accounts receivable and costs incurred for inventory.

176. The 2018 10-K further reported OEM revenues for the fiscal years ended December 

31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, as follows:

OEM—Revenues from OEM increased $10.0 million, or 9.0%, to $120.7 million 

for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $110.7 million for the year 

ended December 31, 2017. OEM revenues increased primarily as a result of higher 

orders and due to timing of delivery to certain OEM distributors, primarily in the 

dental and trauma markets.

177. The 2018 10-K stated that RTI’s “management believes that, as of December 31, 

2018, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective.” Moreover, the 2018 

10-K contained SOX certifications signed by Farhat and Singer, attesting to the accuracy of the 

financial statements contained therein, the disclosure of all fraud, and the effectiveness of the 

Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

178. The statements in the 2018 10-K were materially misleading because they failed to 

disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, 

including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales returns; (3) 

that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and 

(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 55 of 100 PageID #:515
687141 3 53

179. On May 2, 2019, RTI held a conference call to discuss the first quarter 2019 

financial results with analysts and investors. During the call, defendant Signer stated: “RTI's 

worldwide revenue for the first quarter of 2019 was $69.7 million compared with $69.9 million 

during the same period for the prior year. . . . The majority of the decline in OEM is due to $1.1 

million of revenue booked in the first quarter of 2018 which was shifted from the second quarter 

if you recall our discussions of last year.”

180. On May 7, 2019, Farhat, Singer, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, 

Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report with the SEC for the period ended March 

31, 2019 (the “1Q19 10-Q”). The report was signed by defendants Farhat and Singer. Therein, 

RTI reported revenue of $69.74 million and goodwill related to Paradigm of $248.55 million. 

Specifically, regarding the allocation of the purchase price for Paradigm, the Company reported: 

181. The 1Q19 10-Q also stated that RTI’s CEO and CFO had “concluded that the design 

and operation of [the Company’s] disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end 

of the period covered by this report.” Regarding internal control over financial reporting, the report 

stated, in relevant part: 

We implemented ASU 2016-02 as of January 1, 2019. As a result, we made the 

following significant modifications to internal control over financial reporting, 

including changes to accounting policies and procedures and documentation 

practices:

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 56 of 100 PageID #:516
687141 3 54

• Updated our policies and procedures related to accounting for lease assets 

and liabilities and related income and expense

• Modified our contract review controls

• Added controls for reevaluating our significant assumptions and judgments 

on a quarterly basis.

• Added controls to address required disclosures regarding leases, including 

our significant assumptions and judgments used in applying ASC 842.

Other than the items described above, there have not been any changes in our 

internal control over financial reporting identified in management’s evaluation 

pursuant to Rules 13a-15(d) or 15d-15(d) of the Exchange Act during the three 

months ended March 31, 2019, that materially affected, or that we believe are 

reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

182. The statements in ¶¶ 179–181 were materially misleading because they failed to 

disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that RTI did not appropriately prepare preliminary estimates of the purchase price allocation for 

Paradigm, resulting in errors impacting intangible assets, acquisition contingencies, inventory, and 

goodwill; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial 

reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales 

returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not 

effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial 

statements. 

183. On August 5, 2019, Farhat, Singer, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, 

Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2019 (the 

“2Q19 10-Q”), which was signed by defendants Farhat and Singer. Therein, the Company reported 

revenue of $82.31 million. Regarding the allocation of the purchase price for Paradigm, RTI 

reported: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 57 of 100 PageID #:517
687141 3 55

184. Regarding the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and its internal 

control over financial reporting, the 2Q19 10-Q was substantially similar to the statements 

identified with respect to the 1Q19 10-Q. The report also provided that RTI was “in the process 

of integrating Paradigm into [its] overall internal control over financial reporting processes.”

185. The statements in the 2Q19 10-Q were materially misleading because they failed 

to disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that RTI did not appropriately prepare preliminary estimates of the purchase price allocation for 

Paradigm, resulting in errors impacting intangible assets, acquisition contingencies, inventory, and 

goodwill; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial 

reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales 

returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not 

effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial 

statements.

186. On October 31, 2019, RTI held a conference call with analysts and investors 

regarding the third quarter 2019 financial results. During the call, Singer was asked to explain the 

“relatively large range” for the fourth quarter 2019 guidance; he replied, alluding to the 

unpredictability of revenue due to the Individual Defendants’ accounting manipulation scheme: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 58 of 100 PageID #:518
687141 3 56

Yeah, so there is a number of factors that play into it. Look, we were -- our forecast 

accuracy in the third quarter was obviously horrible .... I would say, stabilization 

and impact of new launches in established therapies is built into the guidance range. 

We do and have had some products back order and so if we stabilize the supply 

side, from a donor and donor quality perspective that will impact the range and then 

there's always a certain element of delivery window with the OEM customers that 

come into play at the end of the quarter. So those are the factors that go into it. I 

don't know if that's helpful or not.

187. On November 7, 2019, Farhat, Singer, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis caused RTI to file its quarterly report for the period ended September 

30, 2019 (the “3Q19 10-Q”), which was signed by Farhat and Singer. Therein, the Company 

reported revenue of $79.13 million. Regarding the allocation of the purchase price for Paradigm, 

RTI reported:

188. The 3Q19 10-Q stated that the Company’s CEO and CFO had “concluded that the 

design and operation of [RTI’s] disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of 

the period covered by this report.” It also stated that there “have not been any changes to [its] 

internal control over financial reporting” during the period.

189. The statements in ¶¶ 186–88 were materially misleading because they failed to 

disclose: (1) that revenue was improperly recognized because certain customer orders, primarily 

for OEM customers, were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval; (2) 

that RTI did not appropriately prepare preliminary estimates of the purchase price allocation for 

Paradigm, resulting in errors impacting intangible assets, acquisition contingencies, inventory, and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 59 of 100 PageID #:519
687141 3 57

goodwill; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial 

reporting, including with respect to the accuracy of journal entries and the accounting for sales 

returns; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI’s disclosure controls and procedures were not 

effective; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, RTI was reasonably likely to restate its financial 

statements.

D. The Truth Begins to Emerge

1. RTI Reveals That Certain OEM Contracts Were Improperly Recorded

190. On March 16, 2020, after the market closed, RTI disclosed that it could not timely 

file its annual report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2019 due to ongoing investigations by the SEC and 

the Audit Committee regarding revenue recognition. Specifically, in a press release, the Company 

stated, in relevant part: 

[RTI’s Audit Committee] is in the process of conducting an internal investigation 

of current and prior period matters relating to the Company’s revenue 

recognition practices regarding the timing of revenue with respect to certain 

contractual arrangements, primarily with OEM customers, including the

accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls related to such 

arrangements. The Audit Committee investigation was precipitated by an ongoing 

SEC investigation related to the periods 2014 through 2016. The Company will not 

be in a position to file its Form 10-K until the Audit Committee concludes its 

investigation and the Company and its independent auditor assess the results of that 

investigation. The Company is working to complete its analysis and file its Form 

10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 within the extension period (through 

March 31, 2020), but no assurance can be given that it will be able to do so.

191. On this news, RTI’s stock price fell $0.40 per share, nearly 15%, to close at $2.35 

per share on March 17, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

192. On March 20, 2020, RTI issued a press release to disclose receipt of a letter from 

The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, “indicating that, as a result of the Company’s delay in filing its 

Form 10-K, the Company is not in compliance with the timely filing requirement for continued 

listing under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1).” 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 60 of 100 PageID #:520
687141 3 58

193. The same day, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC stating that “[o]n March 

17, 2020 the Company and Johannes W. Louw, Vice President Financial Planning and Analysis, 

agreed that Mr. Louw’s employment with the Company would end no later than April 8, 2020.”

194. On this news, RTI’s stock price fell $0.44 per share, or 19.6%, to close at $1.80 per 

share on March 23, 2020, the next trading session.

195. On March 30, 2020, in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC, RTI revealed receipt of a 

letter on March 28, 2020 from counsel for Montagu “stating, among other things, that the Company 

is in breach of Section 7.5(a) of the Purchase Agreement as a result of its failure to file a proxy 

statement with the SEC within the time period set forth in the Purchase Agreement.” RTI had 

thirty days to cure the breach. In the same report, the Company announced that it had postponed 

the special meeting of shareholders, which was set to vote on various proposals necessary to close 

the sale of the OEM business, and the annual meeting of shareholders, which had been scheduled 

for May 13, 2020. 

196. On this news, RTI’s stock price fell $0.20 per share, or 11%, to close at $1.68 per 

share on March 30, 2020.

197. On April 9, 2020, in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC, RTI disclosed certain findings 

from the Audit Committee’s ongoing investigation, including that certain financial statements 

would be restated. Specifically, the Company stated: 

On April 7, 2020, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors concluded that 

the Company will restate its previously issued audited financial statements for the 

years ended December 31, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 and its unaudited 

financial statements for the quarterly periods for 2016-2018 and the nine months 

ended September 30, 2019 (the “Relevant Periods”). Accordingly, investors should 

no longer rely upon the Company’s previously released financial statements as of 

and for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014, and the 

reports on the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting of 

the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm thereon; or the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 61 of 100 PageID #:521
687141 3 59

quarterly financial statements and other financial data released related to the 

Relevant Periods.

The Company has concluded that revenue for certain invoices should have been 

recognized at a later date than when originally recognized. In response to binding 

purchase orders from certain OEM customers, goods were shipped and received by 

the customers before requested delivery dates and agreed-upon delivery windows. 

In many instances, the OEM customers requested or approved the early shipments, 

but the Company has determined that on other occasions the goods were delivered 

early without obtaining the customers’ affirmative approval. In addition, the 

Company has concluded that in July 2017, an adjustment was improperly made 

to a product return provision in the Direct Division. Accordingly, the Company 

will revise its financial statements to correct these errors and any others as it 

finalizes the Investigation. The Company and the Audit Committee of the Board of 

Directors have discussed these matters with Deloitte & Touche LLP, the 

Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

198. On April 29, 2020, the Company announced certain amendments to its agreement 

to sell the OEM business to Montagu, including, among other things, a $50 million reduction in 

the purchase price, i.e., from $490 million to $440 million. The Company also agreed to an 

extension on the closing of the transaction and an extension to file its 2020 proxy statement and 

2019 annual report with the SEC.

199. Moreover, in the same filing, RTI disclosed the terms of Louw’s separation from 

the Company. Specifically, the Company stated, in relevant part: 

As previously announced, on March 17, 2020, the Company and Johannes W. 

Louw, Vice President Financial Planning and Analysis, agreed that Mr. Louw’s 

employment with RTI Surgical would end no later than April 8, 2020. In connection 

with his departure, on April 24, 2020, RTI Surgical entered into a Separation 

Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Separation Agreement”) and a Consultant 

Agreement (the “Consultant Agreement”) with Mr. Louw.

Pursuant to the terms of the Separation Agreement, Mr. Louw agreed to release RTI 

Surgical as well as its past and current parents, subsidiaries and affiliated 

organizations (including the Company) from certain claims arising prior to April 

24, 2020, and reaffirm certain ongoing and post-employment obligations to RTI 

Surgical and the Company with respect to confidentiality. In exchange for such 

release and reaffirmation, RTI Surgical agreed to provide Mr. Louw with a 

separation payment in the amount of $195,294.00.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 62 of 100 PageID #:522
687141 3 60

Pursuant to the terms of the Consultant Agreement, Mr. Louw agreed to provide 

certain services to RTI Surgical as a consultant from April 9, 2020 until the earlier 

of: (i) the consummation of the sale of the Company’s OEM business pursuant to 

the Purchase Agreement; and (ii) the termination of such agreement. In exchange 

for such consultant services, RTI Surgical agreed to pay to Mr. Louw the following 

compensation: (i) $23,741 per month; (ii) reimbursement for reasonable and 

documented out-of-pocked expenses incurred by Mr. Louw in connection with 

performance of such services; and (iii) reimbursement of actual travel expenses in 

accordance with RTI’s travel policy at the time of travel. Either party may terminate 

the Consultant Agreement at any time, with or without cause, by providing the other 

party 30 days’ advance written notice.

2. RTI Restates its Financial Statements and Reports Material 

Weaknesses in its Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting

200. On June 8, 2020, the Company filed a Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 

31, 2018 (the “2018 Amended 10-K”) with the SEC to restate its financial results for prior periods 

because, among other things, “revenue for certain invoices should have been recorded at a later 

date than when originally recognized” and “adjustments [had been] improperly or erroneously 

made to manual journal entry accrual/reserve accounts.” Specifically, regarding the background 

for the restatement, the report stated: 

Based on the results of the Investigation, the Company has concluded that revenue 

for certain invoices should have been recognized at a later date than when originally 

recognized. In response to binding purchase orders from certain OEM customers, 

goods were shipped and received by the customers before requested delivery dates 

and agreed-upon delivery windows. In many instances the OEM customers 

requested or approved the early shipments, but the Company has determined that 

on other occasions the goods were delivered early without obtaining the 

customers’ affirmative approval. Some of those unapproved shipments were 

shipped by employees in order to generate additional revenue and resulted in 

shipments being pulled from a future quarter into an earlier quarter. The revenue 

for those shipments is being restated, as well as for other orders that shipped earlier 

than the purchase order due date in the system for which the Company could not 

locate evidence that the OEM customers had requested or approved the shipments. 

In addition, the Investigation found that in July 2017 a $30,000 adjustment was 

improperly made to a product return provision in the Direct Division that 

increased the Direct Division’s revenue in the prior quarter. The July 2017 

adjustment prompted additional investigative steps. The Company has concluded 

that in the periods of the fourth quarter of 2015 through the fourth quarter of 2018 

certain adjustments were improperly or erroneously made to manual journal entry 

accrual/reserve accounts, including a July 2017 adjustment to a product return 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 63 of 100 PageID #:523
687141 3 61

provision in the Direct Division. Accordingly, the Company has restated its 

financial statements to correct these errors.

In addition to the correction of the errors discussed above, the Company has also 

made other immaterial corrections in all periods presented. Such immaterial 

corrections reflected in the restated periods and, together with the other corrections 

described above, are referred to herein as “Current and Prior Period Adjustments.” 

The corrections are included in these financial statements contained herein, which 

we refer to herein collectively as the “Restatement”.

201. The 2018 Amended 10-K detailed the restatement as follows: 

a. Revenue – As noted above, the Company has concluded that in some instances 

revenue for certain invoices should have been recognized at a later date than when 

originally recognized. Under both ASC 605 and ASC 606, revenue on sales to OEM 

customers is typically recognized at a point in time upon shipment. The Company 

identified revenue from certain customer orders that was shipped early to customers 

without obtaining authorized approval, and thus was recognized in an incorrect 

period. There were also instances in which the Company could not locate evidence 

that the OEM customers had requested or approved the shipments. Correction of 

these errors, when including the rollover effect from the immediately preceding 

periods, decreased revenue by $0.5 million in 2018, increased revenue by $0.8 

million in 2017, and increased revenue by $3.1 million in 2016.

b. Costs of processing and distribution – Primarily as a result of the error corrections 

noted above, when including the rollover effect from the immediately preceding 

periods, costs of processing and distribution decreased by less than $0.1 million in 

2018, increased by $0.2 million in 2017, and increased by $2.1 million in 2016.

c. Operating expenses – The Company corrected certain errors noted above, 

separate from the Investigation which increased operating expenses by $1.3 

million, less than $0.1 million and $0.6 million, as of December 31, 2018, 2017, 

and 2016, respectively.

d. Accounts receivable – Primarily as a result of the error corrections noted above 

relating to the timing of revenue recognition, accounts receivable decreased by $0.3 

million, increased by $0.1 million, and decreased by $0.6 million, as of December 

31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.

e. Inventories - net – Primarily as a result of the error corrections noted above 

relating to the timing of revenue recognition, inventories - net increased by $0.2 

million, less than $0.1 million, and $0.3 million as of December 31, 2018, 2017, 

and 2016, respectively.

f. Prepaid and other current assets – The Company corrected certain errors noted 

above, separate from the investigation, which decreased prepaid and other current 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 64 of 100 PageID #:524
687141 3 62

assets by $0.4 million, increased by $0.3 million, and decreased by less than $0.1 

million, as of December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. 

g. Property, plant and equipment – net – The Company corrected certain errors 

noted above, separate from the investigation, which increased property, plant and 

equipment – net by $0.1 million, as of December 31, 2016.

h. Deferred tax assets – The Company corrected certain errors noted above, relating 

to the tax effects of changes to the timing of revenue recognition, which increased 

deferred tax assets by $0.3 million, decreased by $0.1 million, and increased by 

$0.1 million as of December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.

i. Other intangible assets – net – The Company corrected certain errors, separate 

from the investigation, which decreased net other intangible assets – net by $0.8 

million and $0.5 million as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, and 

increased other intangible assets – net by less than $0.1 million as of December 31, 

2016.

j. Accounts payable – The Company corrected certain errors, separate from the 

investigation, which decreased accounts payable by $0.1 million as of December 

31, 2018 and 2017, and by less than $0.1 million as of December 31, 2016.

k. Accrued expenses – The Company corrected certain errors noted above, separate 

from the investigation, which increased accrued expenses by $1.2 million, $0.1 

million, and $0.4 million, as of December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.

l. Other long-term liabilities – As a result of the impact of the error corrections 

noted above, separate from the investigation, long-term liabilities increased $0.4 

million as of December 31, 2016.

m. Payments for treasury stock – The Company corrected certain errors, separate 

from the investigation, which reclassified operating cash flows to financing cash 

flows for purchases of treasury stock by $0.5 million and $3.3 million as of 

December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

202. The 2018 Amended 10-K contained restatements of line items for the financial 

statements for the relevant periods. As to restatement for revenue, the report provided, in relevant 

part: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 65 of 100 PageID #:525
687141 3 63

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 66 of 100 PageID #:526
687141 3 64

203. In addition, the 2018 Amended 10-K identified material weaknesses in RTI’s 

internal control over financial reporting. Specifically, the report stated, in relevant part: 

Based on this evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, our CEO and 

CFO have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not 

effective as of December 31, 2018 because of certain material weaknesses in our 

internal control over financial reporting, as further described below.

* * *

Management, including our CEO and CFO, assessed the Company’s internal 

control over financial reporting and concluded that they were not effective as of 

December 31, 2018 (“Evaluation Date”). In making this assessment, management 

used the criteria set forth by the COSO framework. Based on evaluation under these 

criteria, management determined, based upon the existence of the material 

weaknesses described below, that we did not maintain effective internal control 

over financial reporting as of the Evaluation Date.

* * *

We did not maintain an effective control environment based on the criteria 

established in the COSO framework. We have identified deficiencies in the 

principles associated with the control environment of the COSO framework.

Specifically, these control deficiencies constitute material weaknesses, either 

individually or in the aggregate, relating to: (i) appropriate organizational structure, 

reporting lines, and authority and responsibilities in pursuit of objectives; (ii) our 

commitment to attract, develop, and retain competent individuals; and (iii) holding 

individuals accountable for their internal control related responsibilities. As 

disclosed in the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8. “Financial 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 67 of 100 PageID #:527
687141 3 65

Statements and Supplementary Data”, these material weaknesses contributed to 

accounting errors.

We did not maintain an effective control environment to enable the identification 

and mitigation of risks of accounting errors based on the contributing factors to 

material weakness in the control environment, including: The tone from executive 

management was insufficient to create the proper environment for effective 

internal control over financial reporting and to ensure that: (i) there were 

adequate processes for oversight; (ii) there was accountability for the 

performance of internal control over financial reporting responsibilities; (iii) 

personnel with key positions had the appropriate training to carry out their 

responsibilities; and (iv) corrective activities were appropriately applied, 

prioritized, and implemented in a timely manner. . . .

We did not design and implement effective control activities based on the criteria 

established in the COSO framework. We have identified deficiencies in the 

principles associated with the control activities component of the COSO 

framework. Specifically, these control deficiencies constitute material weaknesses, 

either individually or in the aggregate, relating to: (i) selecting and developing 

control activities and information technology that contribute to the mitigation of 

risks and support achievement of objectives; and (ii) deploying control activities 

through policies that establish what is expected and procedures that put policies 

into action.

The following were contributing factors to the material weaknesses in control 

activities:

• Lack of consistently established controls to segregate the function of 

recording and approving journal entries, as well as preparation and review 

of reconciliations with appropriate supporting documentation.

• Inconsistent documentation and retention of support for the review and 

approval of manual journal entries.

• Inconsistent documentation and application of accounting policies and/or 

practice for the sales returns reserve and certain accrual accounts.

• Insufficient resources within the accounting and financial reporting 

department to review the accounting for non-recurring complex purchase 

accounting, contingent payment and segment reporting transactions.

• Insufficient design and operation of certain control activities to respond to 

potential risk of material misstatements in the area of revenue recognition. 

In particular: (i) no controls requiring customer approval for early 

shipments outside of agreed upon shipping terms; (ii) no controls requiring 

centralized retention of proof of customer approval or request related to 

shipping outside of agreed terms; (iii) no formal process for offering or 

approving discounts to customers for early shipments; and (iv) no formal 

controls to ensure appropriate cut-off of direct revenue to customers at 

period ends in line with shipping terms.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 68 of 100 PageID #:528
687141 3 66

Deficiencies in control activities contributed to material accounting errors 

identified and corrected in 2018 and prior years. These design deficiencies in 

control activities contributed to the potential for there to have been material 

accounting errors in substantially all financial statement account balances and 

disclosures.

204. The 2018 Amended 10-K also identified deficiencies in the Company’s risk 

assessment and monitoring activities. Specifically, the report stated, in relevant part:

We did not design and implement an effective risk assessment based on the criteria 

established in the COSO framework. We have identified deficiencies in the 

principles associated with the risk assessment component of the COSO framework.

Specifically, these control deficiencies constitute material weaknesses, either 

individually or in the aggregate, relating to: (i) identifying, assessing, and 

communicating appropriate objectives; (ii) identifying and analyzing risks to 

achieve these objectives; (iii) considering the potential for fraud in assessing risks; 

and (iv) identifying and assessing changes in the business that could impact our 

system of internal controls.

A contributing factor to material weaknesses in the risk assessment included the 

fact that the Company’s formal SOX compliance program did not have sufficient 

scope and focus on the key financial reporting risks.

* * *

We did not design and implement effective monitoring activities based on the 

criteria established in the COSO framework. We have identified deficiencies in the 

principles associated with the monitoring component of the COSO framework. 

Specifically, these control deficiencies constitute material weaknesses, either 

individually or in the aggregate, relating to: (i) selecting, developing, and 

performing ongoing evaluation to ascertain whether the components of internal 

controls are present and functioning; and (ii) evaluating and communicating 

internal control deficiencies in a timely manner to those parties responsible for 

taking corrective action.

The following were contributing factors to the material weaknesses in monitoring 

activities:

• Management did not properly evaluate the function and operating 

effectiveness of certain internal control activities, limiting its ability to 

detect and communicate deficiencies.

• Internal audit activities were insufficient to keep pace with the size and 

complexity of our business structure and organization, which limited our 

ability to effectively monitor internal controls.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 69 of 100 PageID #:529
687141 3 67

• The Company’s formal SOX compliance program did not have sufficient 

scope and focus on the key financial reporting risks.

• The Company did not have sufficient talent and resources with sufficient 

expertise to evaluate the risks and controls.

• The Company did not have sufficient oversight and supervision of the 

internal control evaluation process.

205. Also on June 8, 2020, RTI filed its annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended 

December 31, 2019 (the “2019 10-K”). With respect to the errors in the quarterly financial 

statements issued in fiscal 2019, the 2019 10-K summarized: 

a. Revenue – As noted above, the Company has concluded that in some instances 

revenue for certain invoices should have been recognized at a later date than when 

originally recognized. The Company identified revenue from certain customer 

orders that were shipped early to customers without obtaining authorized approval, 

and thus was recognized in an incorrect period. There were also instances in which 

the Company could not locate evidence that the OEM customers had requested or 

approved the shipments and therefore concluded revenue related to these shipments 

were an error. Correction of these errors, when including the rollover effect from 

the immediately preceding periods, increased revenue by $0.3 million in the quarter 

ended March 31, 2019, decreased by $0.8 million in the quarter ended June 30, 

2019 and increased by $0.6 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

b. Costs of processing and distribution – Based on the corrections to the above 

revenue errors, when including the rollover effect from the immediately preceding 

periods, costs of processing and distribution increased by $0.1 million in the quarter 

ended March 31, 2019, decreased by $0.2 million in the quarter ended June 30, 

2019 and increased by $0.1 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

c. Accounts receivable – As a result of the errors corrections above, accounts 

receivable increased by $0.4 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2019, 

decreased by $0.3 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2019 and increased $0.3 

million in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

d. Inventories, net – As a result of the errors corrections above, net inventories 

decreased by $0.1 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2019, increased by $0.1 

million in the quarter ended June 30, 2019 and increased by less than $0.1 million 

in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

e. Deferred tax assets – As a result of the income tax impact of the errors corrections 

above, deferred tax assets decreased by $0.6 million in the quarter ended March 31, 

2019, decreased by $0.5 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2019, and decreased 

by $0.6 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 70 of 100 PageID #:530
687141 3 68

206. In addition to the errors identified in the 2018 Amended 10-K, the 2019 10-K stated 

that “[a]dditional errors were made in connection with the recording of the acquisition of Paradigm 

Spine, LLC in 2019.” Specifically, the report stated: 

The following errors in the Company’s quarterly financial statements were 

identified and corrected apart from the Investigation and related to accounting for 

our 2019 acquisition of Paradigm Spine, LLC for the first three quarters of 2019. 

ASC 805 Business Combinations states that if the initial accounting for a business 

combination is incomplete by the end of the reporting period in which the 

combination occurs, the acquirer shall report in its financial statements the 

provisional amounts for the items for which the accounting is incomplete. The 

acquisition occurred on March 8, 2019, before the end of the first quarter of 2019. 

Accordingly, based on the information known or knowable in the first quarter of 

2019, the Company should have performed a preliminary allocation of the purchase 

price to assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The Company did not appropriately 

prepare a preliminary estimates of the purchase price allocation resulting in errors 

impacting intangible assets, acquisition contingencies, inventory, and goodwill. 

The correction of the errors related to accounting for the acquisition of Paradigm 

Spine, LLC are as follows:

a. Costs of processing and distribution – Based on the corrections to the inventory 

valuation and Paradigm purchase accounting, costs of processing and distribution 

increased by $0.3 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2019, decreased by $1.9 

million in the quarter ended June 30, 2019, and by $1.2 million in the quarter ended 

September 30, 2019.

b. Marketing, general and administrative – Based on the corrections to the 

amortization related to the other intangible assets’ valuation and Paradigm purchase 

accounting, marketing, general and administrative expenses increased by $0.7 

million in the quarter ended March 31, 2019 and increased $2.1 million in each of 

the quarters ended June 30, and September 30, 2019.

c. Current inventories, net – Based on the corrections to the inventory valuation and 

Paradigm purchase accounting, net current inventories increased by $1.2 million in 

quarter ended March 31, 2019, and decreased by $12.6 million in the quarters ended 

June 30, and September 30, 2019.

d. Non-current inventories, net – Based on the corrections to the inventory valuation 

and Paradigm purchase accounting, net non-current inventories increased by $10.3 

million in quarter ended March 31, 2019, decreased $11.2 million in the quarter 

ended June 30, 2019, and decreased by $10.0 million in the quarter ended 

September 30, 2019.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 71 of 100 PageID #:531
687141 3 69

e. Deferred tax assets – Based on the corrections to the Paradigm purchase 

accounting deferred tax assets increased by $0.2 million in quarter ended March 

31, 2019, increased by $0.3 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2019, and 

increased by $0.5 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

f. Goodwill – Based on the corrections to the Paradigm purchase accounting, 

goodwill decreased by $113.5 million in quarter ended March 31, 2019, decreased 

$76.4 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2019, and decreased by $41.7 million 

in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

g. Other intangible assets - net – Based on the corrections to the Paradigm purchase 

accounting, net other intangible assets increased by $78.3 million in the quarter 

ended March 31, 2019, increased $76.2 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2019, 

and increased $74.1 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

h. Acquisition contingencies – Based on the corrections to the contingent liability 

valuation and Paradigm purchase accounting, acquisition contingencies decreased 

by $22.8 million in each of the quarters ended March 31, and June 30, 2019 and 

increased $11.9 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2019.

207. The 2019 10-K also identified certain “immaterial corrections in all periods 

presented.” Specifically, it summarized: 

a. Marketing, general and administrative – The Company corrected certain errors 

which decreased marketing, general and administrative expenses by $0.5 million in 

the quarter ended March 31, 2019 and less than $0.1 million in each of the quarters 

ended June 30, and September 30, 2019. 

b. Accounts receivable – The Company corrected certain errors which decreased 

accounts receivable by $0.4 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2019, and by 

$0.3 million for the quarters ended June 30, and September 30, 2019.

c. Prepaid and other current assets – The Company corrected certain errors which 

decreased prepaid and other current assets by $0.5 million for each of the quarters 

ended March 31, and June 30, 2019, and September 30, 2019.

d. Deferred tax assets - net – The Company corrected certain errors which increased 

net deferred tax assets by $0.7 million for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, 

and September 30, 2019.

e. Property, plant & equipment – The Company corrected certain errors which 

increased property, plant & equipment by $0.3 million for the quarters ended March 

31, June 30, and September 30, 2019.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 72 of 100 PageID #:532
687141 3 70

f. Other intangible assets - net – The Company corrected certain errors which 

decreased net other intangible assets by $0.8 million for each of the quarters ended 

March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2019.

g. Other assets - net – The Company corrected certain errors which decreased net 

other assets by $0.3 million for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and 

September 30, 2019.

h. Accounts payable – The Company corrected certain errors which decreased 

accounts payable by $0.2 million for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and 

September 30, 2019.

i. Accrued expenses – The Company corrected certain errors which increased 

accrued expenses by $0.6 million for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and 

September 30, 2019.

j. Payments for treasury stock – The Company corrected certain errors which 

reclassified operating cash flows to financing cash flows for purchases of treasury 

stock by $0.1 million, $0.2 million, and $0.2 million for the quarters ended March 

31, June 30, and September 30, 2019, respectively.

208. The 2019 10-K stated that RTI’s “disclosure controls and procedures were not 

effective as of December 31, 2019 because of certain material weaknesses in [its] internal control 

over financial reporting” substantially similar to those identified in the 2018 Amended 10-K. The 

report also stated that “[r]emediation of the identified material weaknesses and strengthening [the 

Company’s] internal control environment will require a substantial effort throughout 2020 and 

beyond, as necessary.” 

209. As a direct result of the restatement, RTI and Montagu amended the purchase 

agreement, reducing the purchase price by approximately $40 million and eliminating the RTI’s 

ownership stake in the go-forward OEM business, which was worth approximately $10 million.

210. On June 29, 2020, the Company filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the 

period ended March 31, 2020, stating: 

Based on the results of the Investigation, the Company concluded that revenue for 

certain invoices should have been recognized at a later date than when originally 

recognized. In response to binding purchase orders from certain OEM customers, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 73 of 100 PageID #:533
687141 3 71

goods were shipped and received by the customers before requested delivery dates 

and agreed-upon delivery windows. In many instances the OEM customers 

requested or approved the early shipments, but the Company determined that on 

other occasions the goods were delivered early without obtaining the customers’

affirmative approval. Some of those unapproved shipments were shipped by 

employees in order to generate additional revenue and resulted in shipments 

being pulled from a future quarter into an earlier quarter.

211. On March 16, 2021, RTI filed its annual report for fiscal year 2020, admitting that 

the material weaknesses leading to the restatement had not been remediated. According to the 

report “[r]emediation of the identified material weaknesses and strengthening our internal control 

environment will require a substantial effort throughout 2021.”

3.

212.

213.

214.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 74 of 100 PageID #:534
687141 3 72

215.

216.

 

217.

218.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 75 of 100 PageID #:535
687141 3 73

219.

220.

221.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 76 of 100 PageID #:536
687141 3 74

222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 77 of 100 PageID #:537
687141 3 75

227.

228.

229.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 78 of 100 PageID #:538
687141 3 76

230.

231.

232.

233.

234.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 79 of 100 PageID #:539
687141 3 77

235.

236.

237.

238.

239.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 80 of 100 PageID #:540
687141 3 78

240.

E. The Director Defendants Caused the Company to Expend Significant Funds 

to Repurchase Its Stock

241. The Director Defendants caused the Company to initiate repurchases of its common 

stock that substantially damaged the Company. In total, RTI spent an aggregate amount of over 

$4.5 million to repurchase approximately 1,006,318 shares of its own common stock at artificially 

inflated prices from August 2016 through March 2019.

242. According to the 2016 10-K, during August 2016, the Company purchased 109,506 

shares of its common stock for approximately $362,464 at an average price of $3.31 per share. As 

the Company’s stock was actually worth only $2.35 per share, the price at closing on March 17, 

2020, the Company overpaid by $105,125 for stock repurchases during this period.

243. According to the 2017 10-K, during January, February, and November 2017, the 

Company purchased 745,122 shares of its common stock for approximately $3.4 million at an 

average price of $4.65 per share. As the Company’s stock was actually worth only $2.35 per share, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 81 of 100 PageID #:541
687141 3 79

the price at closing on March 17, 2020, the Company overpaid by nearly $1.7 million for stock 

repurchases during this period.

244. According to the 2018 10-K, during the months of January, April, May, July, and 

August 2018, the Company purchased 107,109 shares of its common stock for approximately 

$478,591 at an average price of $4.47 per share. As the Company’s stock was actually worth only 

$2.35 per share, the price at closing on March 17, 2020, the Company overpaid by approximately 

$226,885 for stock repurchases during this period.

245. According to the 1Q19 10-Q, during the quarter ended March 31, 2019, the 

Company purchased 29,021 shares of its common stock for approximately $136,435 at an average 

price of $4.70 per share. As the Company’s stock was actually worth only $2.35 per share, the 

price at closing on March 17, 2020, the Company overpaid by about $68,199 for stock repurchases 

during this period.

246. According to the 2Q19 10-Q, during the quarter ended June 30, 2019, the Company 

purchased 7,748 shares of its common stock for approximately $38,032 at an average price of 

$4.94 per share. As the Company’s stock was actually worth only $2.35 per share, the price at 

closing on March 17, 2020, the Company overpaid by $19,825 for stock repurchases during this 

period.

247. According to the 3Q19 10-Q, during the quarter ended September 30, 2019, the 

Company purchased 7,812 shares of its common stock for approximately $31,908 at an average 

price of $4.11 per share. As the Company’s stock was actually worth only $2.35 per share, the 

price at closing on March 17, 2020, the Company overpaid by approximately $13,550 for stock 

repurchases during this period.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 82 of 100 PageID #:542
687141 3 80

248. In sum, the Company overpaid for repurchases of its own stock by over $2.1 

million.

F. Defendant Singer Sold Nearly $45,000 in RTI Stock While in Possession of 

Material Non-Public Information

249. Singer is the Company’s CFO with a highly sophisticated understanding of the 

Company’s results and their import. 

250. As set forth herein, defendant Singer possessed material negative information 

which he knew was being concealed from investors. Defendant Singer consciously acted to exploit 

his knowledge by selling nearly $45,000 of RTI stock to his substantial benefit, as follows: 

Date Shares Sold Price Proceeds

2/26/2020 5,940 $4.05 $24,057

2/28/2020 5,510 $3.70 $20,387

251. Singer thus used his fiduciary position to enrich himself and failed to discharge his 

duties by causing the Company to candidly reveal the truth of its business condition.

G. The Motion to Dismiss in the Securities Class Action Was Denied

252. On April 1, 2021, Judge Kennelly denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 

Securities Class Action, finding that a securities fraud claim had been alleged. As to the falsity of 

prior statements, Judge Kennelly found: 

The Court concludes Yeretsian has adequately alleged that the defendants made 

material misstatements. She alleges that RTI and its management report inaccurate 

financial results to the SEC for at least five consecutive years; RTI’s filings violated 

GAAP requirements; RTI was subject to an investigation by the SEC as well as an 

internal audit committee for its erroneous revenue recognition practices in the OEM 

business and ineffective internal controls; RTI’s improper activities led it to 

resubmit five years’ worth of financial reports. A company’s restatement of 

previously reported financial results is likely enough by itself to show materiality. 

The reason for this is that under GAAP, previously-issued financial statements 

should be restated only to correct material accounting errors.

253. As to the officers’ awareness of the falsity of the statements (i.e., the scienter 

element of the securities fraud claim), Judge Kennelly found: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 83 of 100 PageID #:543
687141 3 81

In reviewing the amended complaint, the Court finds that Yeretsian has included 

specifical factual allegations plausibly implicating RTI’s management—namely 

the individual defendants—as the key personnel responsible for designing and 

maintaining RTI’s internal controls; these same individuals later acknowledged 

RTI’s internal control deficiencies. Yeretsian has also alleged specific facts 

plausibly indicating that at least some of the individual defendants directed account 

managers to ship products early (or were aware of and condoned this practice) 

and that each defendant signed SEC filings attesting to the accuracy of RTI’s 

financial reports even though those reports were erroneous.

(citations omitted).

254. Therefore, it is now a virtual certainty that RTI will face a substantial likelihood of 

liability in the Securities Class Action.

VI. DAMAGES TO THE COMPANY

255. As a direct and proximate result of the Individual Defendants’ conduct, RTI has 

been seriously harmed and will continue to be. Such harm includes, but is not limited to:

a) Costs incurred in connection with the SEC’s investigation;

b) Funds expended in connection with the stock repurchases;

c) The price reduction for the sale of the Company’s OEM business;

d) Fees for legal and professional fees incurred in connection with the Securities Class 

Action;

e) Any funds paid to settle the Securities Class Action; and

f) Costs incurred from compensation and benefits paid to the defendants who have 

breached their duties to RTI.

256. In addition, RTI’s business, goodwill, and reputation with its business partners, 

regulators, and shareholders have been gravely impaired. The Company still has not fully admitted 

the nature of its false statements and the true condition of its business. The credibility and motives 

of management are now in serious doubt.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 84 of 100 PageID #:544
687141 3 82

257. The actions complained of herein have irreparably damaged RTI’s corporate image 

and goodwill. For at least the foreseeable future, RTI will suffer from what is known as the “liar’s 

discount,” a term applied to the stocks of companies who have been implicated in illegal behavior 

and have misled the investing public, such that RTI’s ability to raise equity capital or debt on 

favorable terms in the future is now impaired.

VII. DERIVATIVE AND DEMAND FUTILITY ALLEGATIONS

258. Plaintiffs bring this action derivatively in the right and for the benefit of RTI to 

redress injuries suffered, and to be suffered, by RTI as a direct result of breaches of fiduciary duty 

by the Individual Defendants, insider trading, violations of Section 10(b) and 14(a) of the 

Exchange Act, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. RTI is named as a nominal 

defendant solely in a derivative capacity. This is not a collusive action to confer jurisdiction on 

this Court that it would not otherwise have.

259. Plaintiffs will adequately and fairly represent the interests of RTI in enforcing and 

prosecuting its rights.

260. Plaintiffs have continuously been a shareholder of RTI at times relevant to the 

wrongdoing complained of and is a current RTI shareholder.

261. When this action was filed,2 RTI’s Board of Directors consisted of Farhat, 

McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis and non-party directors 

Lightcap and Simpson. Plaintiffs did not make any demand on the Board to institute this action 

because such a demand would be a futile, wasteful, and useless act, as set forth below. 

Defendant Farhat

2 The lead case in this consolidated action was filed on June 5, 2020.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 85 of 100 PageID #:545
687141 3 83

262. Farhat served as RTI’s CEO when this action was filed, and therefore is not 

independent under NASDAQ listing rules. As an employee, Farhat derives substantially all of his 

income from his employment with RTI, thus could not disinterestedly consider a demand for action 

that might require him to sue the directors that control his continued employment and/or fellow 

members of management with whom he works on a day-to-day basis. Farhat personally issued the 

misleading statements alleged herein. As a result, Farhat would be interested in a demand 

regarding his own wrongdoing, and demand is futile as to him. 

Defendants McEachin, Stolper, and Weis

263. McEachin, Stolper, and Weis served as the members of the Audit Committee at all 

relevant times. As such, they are responsible for the effectiveness of the Company’s internal 

controls, the integrity of its financial statements, and its compliance with laws and regulations. In 

their capacities as Audit Committee members, McEachin, Stolper, and Weis reviewed and 

approved the disclosures regarding the Company’s financial statements, including with respect to 

revenue recognition for OEM customers. As alleged herein, McEachin, Stolper, and Weis failed 

to ensure the integrity of the Company’s internal controls, allowing the materially misleading 

statements to be disseminated in RTI’s SEC filings and other disclosures. Thus, McEachin, 

Stolper, and Weis breached their fiduciary duties and are not disinterested, and demand is excused 

as to them.

264.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 86 of 100 PageID #:546
687141 3 84

 

265.

 

 

266. For these reasons, demand is excused as to McEachin, Stolper, and Weis because 

they face a substantial likelihood of liability for their utter failure to implement any reporting or 

information system or controls related to revenue recognition, and their failure to exercise even a 

modicum of oversight over same. 

Defendants Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis

267. Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis each 

are responsible for the issuance of the misleading disclosures and omissions in the Form 10-Ks for 

fiscal years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, having signed and issued the 10-Ks. When Farhat, 

McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis signed the Form 10-Ks, they 

knew that the Company had improperly recognized revenue with respect to OEM customers. By 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 87 of 100 PageID #:547
687141 3 85

intentionally issuing disclosures that misrepresented the Company’s results, Farhat, McEachin, 

Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis breached their fiduciary duties and face 

a substantial likelihood of liability. 

268.

269. Additionally, demand is excused as to Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis in connection with the insider selling of Singer. The 

material negative non-public information known to Singer when he sold his stock is the same 

information as was known to Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, 

and Weis when they signed and issued the Form 10-Ks. Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis could not disinterestedly investigate allegations that Singer 

traded on non-public information because they are alleged to have concealed the same information, 

and finding that Singer had trading on such information would be admitting that indeed the 

information had been concealed, and was known by the Board and management when they issued 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 88 of 100 PageID #:548
687141 3 86

the Form 10-Ks. As a result, demand is excused in connection with the Brophy claim alleged 

herein.

270. Moreover, Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and 

Weis were directors at the time of the stock repurchases alleged herein and voted to conduct the 

stock repurchase. These Defendants therefore by their intentional acts caused the Company to be 

harmed by over $2.1 million. Having failed to make any good faith effort to oversee the 

Company’s controls related to revenue recognition, Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis were not adequately informed regarding the reliability of the 

Company’s reported financial statements when they voted to cause RTI to purchase its own stock. 

Their vote was therefore not a valid exercise of business judgment. They could not disinterestedly 

consider a demand for action or investigate their votes without being required to evaluate and make 

a decision on such topics as their states of mind and whether there was a reason to doubt they acted 

with business judgement. This they could not do disinterestedly and independently, and thus 

demand is excused.

271. Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis could 

not disinterestedly consider a demand to action in connection with the misleading proxy statement 

issued in 2018. These eight directors issued the proxy statement knowing that representations 

made in the Company’s SEC filings and other disclosures were misleading with respect to the 

Company’s revenue recognition, and they did not disclose the same prior to the issuance of the 

proxy statement or the shareholder vote in 2018. Had these eight directors truthfully and 

completely revealed the misleading nature of the Company’s public statements, Farhat, Gearen, 

McEachin, Stolper, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis would not have been reelected as directors and 

the 2018 Plan would not have been approved. As a result Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 89 of 100 PageID #:549
687141 3 87

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis would be interested in a demand regarding the misleading 

proxy statement, and demand is excused as to them on that basis as well.

COUNT I

Against All Defendants for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

272. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation contained 

above, as though fully set forth herein.

273. Each Individual Defendant owes and owed to the Company the duty to exercise 

candor, good faith, and loyalty in the management and administration of RTI’s business and 

affairs, particularly with respect to issues as fundamental as public disclosures.

274. The Individual Defendants’ conduct set forth herein was due to their intentional or 

reckless breach of the fiduciary duties they owed to the Company. The Individual Defendants 

intentionally or recklessly breached or disregarded their fiduciary duties to protect the rights and 

interests of RTI.

275. In breach of their fiduciary duties owed to RTI, the Individual Defendants willfully 

participated in and caused the Company to expend unnecessarily its corporate funds, rendering 

them personally liable to the Company for breaching their fiduciary duties.

276. In particular, the Individual Defendants knowingly or recklessly made untrue 

statements and/or permitted the Company’s public filings, disclosures, and statements to 

misleadingly report revenue and the Company’s overall prospects.

277. As a direct and proximate result of the Individual Defendants’ breaches of their 

fiduciary obligations, RTI has sustained and continues to sustain significant damages. Including 

direct monetary damages, exposure to liability from securities litigation and a loss of goodwill in 

the capital markets. As a result of the misconduct alleged herein, defendants are liable to the 

Company.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 90 of 100 PageID #:550
687141 3 88

COUNT II

Against Singer – Brophy Claim

278. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation contained 

above, as though fully set forth herein. 

279. As alleged herein, Singer is a fiduciary of RTI, possessed material, non-public 

information of RTI, and used that information improperly to profit from sales of RTI stock. When 

Singer directed the stock sales set forth above, he was motivated to do so, in whole or in part, by 

the substance of the material, non-public information he possessed and he acted with scienter.

280. When Singer sold his RTI stock, he knew that the investing public was unaware of 

the negative material information that he possessed. He also knew that if the information were 

disclosed, the market price of RTI stock would be significantly lower. Singer timed his stock sale 

to take advantage of the investing public’s ignorance of the concealed material facts and obtain a 

higher price for the stock he sold. He thereby benefitted by misappropriating RTI’s non-public 

information. 

281. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT III

Against Farhat, Hutchison, Singer, Jordheim, and Louw for Contribution

For Violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act

282. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation contained 

above, as though fully set forth herein. 

283. Farhat, Hutchison, Singer, Jordheim, and Louw are named as Defendants in the 

related Securities Class Action. The conduct of these defendants, as described herein, has exposed 

the Company to significant liability under various federal and state securities laws by their disloyal 

acts.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 91 of 100 PageID #:551
687141 3 89

284. RTI is named as a defendant in related securities class actions that allege and assert 

claims arising under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The Company is alleged to be liable to private 

persons, entities and/or classes by virtue of many of the same facts alleged herein. If RTI is found 

liable for violating the federal securities laws, the Company’s liability will arise in whole or in part 

from the intentional, knowing, or reckless acts or omissions of all or some of the defendants as 

alleged herein, who have caused the Company to suffer substantial harm through their disloyal 

acts. The Company is entitled to contribution and indemnification from these defendants in 

connection with all claims that have been, are, or may be asserted against the Company by virtue 

of their wrongdoing.

285. As officers, directors and otherwise, Farhat, Hutchison, Singer, Jordheim, and 

Louw had the power or ability to, and did, control or influence, either directly or indirectly, RTI’s 

general affairs, including the content of its public statements, and had the power or ability to 

directly or indirectly control or influence the specific corporate statements and conduct that 

violated § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

286. Farhat, Hutchison, Singer, Jordheim, and Louw are liable under § 21D of the 

Exchange Act, which governs the application of any private right of action for contribution 

asserted pursuant to the Exchange Act.

287. Farhat, Hutchison, Singer, Jordheim, and Louw have damaged the Company and 

are liable to the Company for contribution.

288. No adequate remedy at law exists for Plaintiffs by and on behalf of the Company.

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 92 of 100 PageID #:552
687141 3 90

COUNT IV

Derivative Claim for Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5

Promulgated Thereunder Against Defendants Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, 

Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis

289. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation contained 

above, as though fully set forth herein. 

290. This Count is asserted on behalf of the Company against Farhat, McEachin, 

Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis for violations of Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b5.

291. At all relevant times, in connection with RTI’s repurchases of its shares, Farhat, 

McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis made, disseminated, or 

approved false or misleading statements about the Company specified herein, which they knew or 

deliberately disregarded were false or misleading and were intended to deceive, manipulate, or 

defraud. Those false or misleading statements and Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis’s course of conduct were designed to artificially inflate the price of 

the Company’s common stock.

292. At the same time that the price of the Company’s common stock was inflated due 

to the false and misleading statements, Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, 

Valeriani, and Weis caused the Company to repurchase over a million shares of its own stock at 

prices that were artificially inflated due to their false or misleading statements. Farhat, McEachin, 

Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis engaged in a scheme to defraud the 

Company by causing it to repurchase its shares at inflated prices.

293. Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis 

violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in that they (a) employed devices, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 93 of 100 PageID #:553
687141 3 91

schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state 

material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under 

which they were made, not misleading; and/or (c) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of 

business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the Company in connection with the Company’s 

purchases of RTI common stock at all relevant times.

294. Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis, 

directly and indirectly, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or of 

the U.S. mails, engaged and participated in a continuous course of conduct that operated as a fraud 

and deceit upon the Company; made or disseminated various false and/or misleading statements 

of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made 

or disseminated, in light of the circumstances under which they were made or disseminated, not 

misleading; made or disseminated the above statements intentionally or with a deliberately 

reckless disregard for the truth; and employed devices and artifices to defraud in connection with 

the Company’s purchase of RTI common stock, which were intended to, and did deceive the 

Company regarding its performance and the effectiveness of its internal controls.

295. Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis were 

directors and senior management and of the Company, and were therefore directly responsible for, 

and are liable for, all materially false or misleading statements made at all relevant times, as alleged 

above.

296. As described above, Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, 

Valeriani, and Weis acted with scienter at all relevant times, in that he acted either with intent to 

deceive, manipulate, or defraud, or with severe recklessness. The misstatements and omissions of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 94 of 100 PageID #:554
687141 3 92

material facts set forth herein were either known to Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, 

Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis or were so that they should have been aware of them.

297. As a result of Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, 

and Weis’s misconduct, RTI has suffered damages in that it paid artificially inflated prices for RTI 

common stock as part of the repurchase program and suffered losses when the true facts became 

known. The Company would not have purchased RTI common stock at the prices it paid, or at all, 

but for the artificial inflation in the Company’s stock price caused by the false or misleading 

statements made by Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis.

298. As a direct and proximate result of Farhat’s, McEachin’s, Selquist’s, Stolper’s, 

Sweeney’s, Thomas’s, Valeriani’s, and Weis’s wrongful conduct, the Company suffered damages 

in connection with its repurchases of RTI common stock during the relevant period. By reason of 

such conduct, Farhat, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, Valeriani, and Weis are 

liable to the Company pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

299. Plaintiffs brought this claim within two years of its discovery of the facts 

constituting the violation and within five years of the violation.

COUNT V

Against Defendants Farhat, Gearen, McEachin, Selquist, Stolper, Sweeney, Thomas, 

Valeriani, and Weis for Violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act

300. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation set forth 

above, as though fully set forth herein. 

301. Rule 14a-9, promulgated pursuant to § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934, provides that no proxy statement shall contain “any statement which, at the time and in light 

of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material 

fact, or which omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 95 of 100 PageID #:555
687141 3 93

not false or misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9. Specifically, the Company’s proxy statement 

filed on March 26, 2018 violated § 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 because: (i) it misrepresented the actual 

activities of the Board, as well as the Audit Committee, with respect to risk management and 

oversight while soliciting votes to reelect and compensate directors who were breaching their 

fiduciary duties; and (ii) it failed to disclose that each of the non-employee directors were 

interested in their own grants of discretionary compensation.

302. In the exercise of reasonable care, defendants should have known that the 

statements contained in the proxy statement were materially false and misleading. 

303. The misrepresentations and omissions in the proxy statement were material to 

Company shareholders in voting on the proxy statement. The 2018 proxy statement solicited 

shareholder votes for: (i) director nominees; (ii) the 2018 Plan; and (iii) executive compensation. 

The proxy statement was an essential link in the accomplishment of the continuation of defendants’ 

continued violation of their fiduciary duties. 

304. The Company was damaged as a result of the defendants’ material 

misrepresentations and omissions in the proxy statement.

COUNT VI

Against the Individual Defendants for Waste of Corporate Assets

305. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation contained 

above, as though fully set forth herein. 

306. The Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and, thereby, caused RTI 

to waste its assets, expend millions of dollars of corporate funds, and impair its reputation and 

credibility for no legitimate business purpose, as a result of which the Company has been and 

continues to be substantially damaged. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 96 of 100 PageID #:556
687141 3 94

307. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of their fiduciary duties, RTI has 

sustained and will continue to sustain significant damages, as alleged herein. As a result of the 

misconduct alleged herein, the Individual Defendants are liable to the Company.

COUNT VII

Against All Defendants for Unjust Enrichment

308. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation contained 

above, as though fully set forth herein. 

309. By their wrongful acts and omissions, the Individual Defendants were unjustly 

enriched at the expense of and to the detriment of RTI. The Individual Defendants were unjustly 

enriched as a result of the compensation and director remuneration they received while breaching 

fiduciary duties owed to RTI. 

310. Plaintiffs, as stockholders and representatives of RTI, seek restitution from these 

defendants, and each of them, and seeks an order of this Court disgorging all profits, benefits, and 

other compensation obtained by these defendants, and each of them, from their wrongful conduct 

and fiduciary breaches. 

311. Plaintiffs, on behalf of RTI, have no adequate remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of RTI, demand judgment as follows:

A. Declaring that Plaintiffs may maintain this action on behalf of RTI and that 

Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Company;

B. Against all of the Defendants and in favor of the Company for the amount of 

damages sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties, 

waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment;

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 97 of 100 PageID #:557
687141 3 95

C. Declaring that the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to 

RTI;

D. Directing RTI to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate 

governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect RTI and its 

stockholders from a repeat of the damaging events described herein, including, but not limited to, 

putting forward for stockholder vote, resolutions for amendments to the Company’s Bylaws or 

Certificate of Incorporation and taking such other action as may be necessary to place before 

stockholders for a vote of the following corporate governance policies:

1. a proposal to strengthen the Company’s controls over financial reporting;

2. a proposal to strengthen the Board’s supervision of operations and develop 

and implement procedures for greater stockholder input into the policies and guidelines of the 

Board;

3. a proposal to strengthen RTI’s oversight of its disclosure procedures;

4. a provision to control insider transactions; and

5. a provision to permit the stockholders of RTI to nominate at least three 

candidates for election to the Board;

E. Extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity, and 

state statutory provisions sued hereunder, including attaching, impounding, imposing a 

constructive trust on, or otherwise restricting the proceeds of defendants’ trading activities or their 

other assets so as to assure that Plaintiffs on behalf of RTI have an effective remedy;

F. Awarding to RTI restitution from defendants, and each of them, and ordering 

disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the defendants;

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 98 of 100 PageID #:558
687141 3 96

G. Awarding to plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the action, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses; and

H. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. 

Dated: June 1, 2021 By: /s/Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

Matthew M. Houston (admitted pro hac vice)

Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels (admitted pro hac vice)

712 Fifth Avenue, 31st Floor

New York, NY 10019

(212) 935-7400

E-mail: bsachsmichaels@glancylaw.com

-andRobert V. Prongay

Pavithra Rajesh

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, California 90067

(310) 201-9150

E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.

Timothy Brown (admitted pro hac vice)

240 Townsend Square

Oyster Bay, NY 11771

(516) 992-5427

Email: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & 

HERZ LLC

Carl V. Malmstrom

111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 984-0000

Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

MILLER LAW LLC

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 99 of 100 PageID #:559
687141 3 97

Andrew Szot

Marvin A. Miller

115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 332-3400

Email: mmiller@millerlawllc.com

Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

Phillip Kim (admitted pro hac vice)

275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor

New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060

Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com

THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ

Frank R. Cruz

1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310) 914-5007

Email: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com

Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-03347 Document #: 56-2 Filed: 06/01/21 Page 100 of 100 PageID #:560