Globus Medical (GMED) Risk Factors

The FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. Even if voluntary, the FDA requires that a medical device manufacturer report to the FDA any corrective action or removal of a device initiated to reduce a risk to health posed by the device. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our distributors could occur as a result of risk to health, component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and financial condition, which could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. We may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our future sales and our ability to generate profits. In the EEA, we must comply with the EU Medical Device Vigilance System. Under this system, manufacturers are required to take Field Safety Corrective Actions (“FSCAs”) to reduce a risk of death or serious deterioration in the state of health associated with the use of a medical device that is already placed on the market. A FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of the device. Any adverse event involving our products, whether in the United States or abroad, could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection, mandatory recall or other enforcement action. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending ourselves in a lawsuit, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business and may harm our reputation and financial results.

We and our third-party suppliers are required to comply with the FDA’s Quality System Regulation (“QSR”), which covers the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, sterilization, storage and shipping of our products. In addition, suppliers and processors of allograft must comply with the CGTP, which govern the methods used in and the facilities and controls used for the manufacture of human cell tissue and cellular and tissue-based products, record-keeping and the establishment of a quality program. The FDA audits compliance with the QSR and CGTP requirements through periodic announced and unannounced inspections of manufacturing and other facilities. The FDA may conduct inspections or audits at any time. If we or our suppliers have significant non-compliance issues or if any corrective action plan that we or our suppliers propose in response to observed deficiencies is not sufficient, the FDA could take enforcement action, including any of the following sanctions: ?untitled letters, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties; ?customer notifications or repair, replacement, refunds, recall, detention or seizure of our products; ?operating restrictions or partial suspension or total shutdown of production; ?refusing or delaying our requests for 510(k) or de novo clearance or PMA of new products or modified products; ?withdrawing 510(k) or de novo clearances or PMAs that have already been granted; ?refusal to grant export approval for our products; or ?criminal prosecution. Any of these sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition. Outside the United States, our products and operations are also often required to comply with standards set by industrial standards bodies, such as the ISO. Foreign regulatory bodies may evaluate our products or the testing that our products undergo against these standards. The specific standards, types of evaluation and scope of review differ among foreign regulatory bodies. We intend to comply with the standards enforced by such foreign regulatory bodies as needed to commercialize our products. If we fail to adequately comply with any of these standards, a foreign regulatory body may take adverse actions similar to those within the power of the FDA. Any such action may harm our reputation and business, and could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims that are inherent in the testing, design, manufacture and sale of medical devices for surgical procedures. The development of allograft implants and technologies for human tissue repair and treatment may entail particular risk of transmitting diseases to human recipients, which could result in the assertion of substantial product liability claims against us. Surgery involves significant risk of serious complications, including bleeding, nerve injury, paralysis and even death. In addition, if longer-term patient results and experience indicates that our products or any component of a product cause tissue damage, motor impairment or other adverse effects, we could be subject to significant liability. Furthermore, if surgeons are not sufficiently trained in the use of our products, they may misuse or ineffectively use our products, which may result in unsatisfactory patient outcomes or patient injury. We could become the subject of product liability lawsuits alleging that component failures, manufacturing flaws, design defects or inadequate disclosure of product-related risks or product-related information resulted in an unsafe condition or injury to patients. The medical devices industry has been particularly prone to potential product liability claims that are inherent in the testing, manufacture and sale of medical devices and products for surgery procedures. A product liability or other damages claim, product recall or product misuse, regardless of the outcome, could require us to spend significant time and money in litigation or to pay significant damages or costs, and could seriously harm our business. If our product liability insurance is inadequate to pay a damages award, we may have to pay the excess out of our cash reserves, which may harm our financial condition. Any product liability claim brought against us, with or without merit, could result in the increase of the costs we incur to obtain product liability insurance or our inability to secure product liability coverage in the future. If any of our products are found to cause tissue damage, motor impairment or other adverse effects, we could be subject to significant liability. Even a meritless or unsuccessful product liability claim could harm our reputation in the industry, impair our ability to sell one or more of our products in the future, result in significant legal fees and cause significant diversion of management’s attention from managing our business. A product liability or other claim, product recall, or product misuse involving any of our products, whether or not meritorious, could also materially and adversely harm our reputation and our ability to attract and retain customers. In addition, any product liability claim brought against us, with or without merit, could result in an increase of our product liability insurance rates. Insurance coverage varies in cost and can be difficult to obtain, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain insurance coverage in the future on terms acceptable to us or at all.

Surgeons play a significant role in determining the course of treatment and, ultimately, the type of product that will be used to treat a patient, so we rely on effectively marketing to them. Hospitals, however, are increasingly involved in the evaluation of products and product purchasing decisions. In order for us to sell our products, we must convince surgeons and hospitals that our products are attractive alternatives to competing products for use in procedures. Acceptance of our products depends on educating surgeons and hospitals as to the distinctive characteristics, perceived benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness of our products as compared to our competitors’ products and on training surgeons in the proper application of our products. If we are not successful in convincing surgeons and hospitals of the merit of our products or educating them on the use of our products, they may not use our products and we will be unable to increase our sales and sustain growth or profitability. Furthermore, we believe surgeons will not widely adopt certain of our most novel Musculoskeletal Solutions or Enabling Technologies products unless they determine, based on experience, clinical data and published peer-reviewed journal articles, that MIS techniques, our motion preservation, regenerative biologics, and INR technologies provide benefits or are an attractive alternative to conventional treatments of musculoskeletal disorders and incorporate improved technologies that permit novel surgical procedures. Surgeons, and in certain instances, hospitals, may be hesitant to change their medical treatment practices or the products available for use to treat patients for the following reasons, among others: ?lack of experience with MIS, motion preservation, regenerative biologics or INR technologies; ?lack or perceived lack of evidence supporting additional patient benefits; ?perceived liability risks generally associated with the use of new products and procedures; ?limited or lack of availability of coverage and reimbursement within healthcare payment systems; ?costs associated with the purchase of new products and equipment; and ?the time commitment that may be required for training. If we are unable to convince surgeons and hospitals to use our products, or long-term data does not show the benefits of using our products, we will not achieve expected sales or sustain our growth, and our financial condition and results of operation may be adversely affected.

Our commercial success will depend in part on not infringing the patents or violating the other proprietary rights of third parties. Significant litigation regarding patent rights exists in our industry. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make and sell our products. We have not conducted an independent review of patents issued to third parties. The large number of patents, the rapid rate of new patent issuances, the complexities of the technology involved and uncertainty of litigation increase the risk of business assets and management’s attention being diverted to patent litigation. We have received in the past, and expect to receive in the future, communications from various industry participants alleging our infringement of their patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property rights and/or offering licenses to such intellectual property. We are currently subject to lawsuits, and have received other written allegations, claiming that we have infringed certain patents of others in the spine industry. A summary of these cases is provided under “Item 3. Legal Proceedings” below. Any lawsuits resulting from such allegations could subject us to significant liability for damages, and invalidate our proprietary rights. Any potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following: ?stop selling products or using technology that contains the allegedly infringing intellectual property; ?lose the opportunity to license our technology to others or to collect royalty payments based upon successful protection and assertion of our intellectual property rights against others; ?incur significant legal expenses; ?pay substantial damages to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing; ?redesign those products that contain the allegedly infringing intellectual property, which could be costly and disruptive; or ?attempt to obtain a license to the relevant intellectual property from third parties, which may not be available on reasonable terms or at all. Any litigation or claim against us, even those without merit, may cause us to incur substantial costs, and could place a significant strain on our financial resources, divert the attention of management from our core business, and harm our reputation. Further, as the number of participants in the musculoskeletal industry grows, the possibility of intellectual property infringement claims against us increases. If we are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, we could be required to pay substantial damages (including treble, or triple, damages if an infringement is found to be willful) and/or royalties and could be prevented from selling our products unless we obtain a license or are able to redesign our products to avoid infringement. Any such license may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all, and there can be no assurance that we would be able to redesign our products in a way that would not infringe the intellectual property rights of others. If we fail to obtain any required licenses or make any necessary changes to our products or technologies, we may have to withdraw existing products from the market or may be unable to commercialize one or more of our products, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Further, in the course of our regular review of pending legal matters, we determine whether it is probable that a potential loss relating to a legal proceeding may have a material impact on our business, financial performance or cash position. However, estimates of probable losses are inherently uncertain, and even if we determine that a loss is probable, in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance, if we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, we do not record an accrual related to such litigation. As a result of this accounting policy, we may experience variability in our results of operations if damages for which we are found liable exceed the amounts we have accrued. In addition, we generally indemnify our customers and distributors with respect to infringement by our products of the proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may assert infringement claims against our customers or distributors. These claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of our customers or distributors, regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of our customers or distributors or may be required to obtain licenses for the products they use. If we cannot obtain all necessary licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our customers may be forced to stop using our products.

The medical device industry is regulated extensively by governmental authorities, principally the FDA and corresponding state and foreign regulatory agencies. The FDA and other U.S. and foreign governmental agencies regulate, among other things, with respect to medical devices: ?design, development and manufacturing; ?testing, labeling, content and language of instructions for use and storage; ?clinical trials; ?product safety; ?marketing, sales and distribution; ?pre-market clearance and approval; ?record keeping procedures; ?advertising and promotion; ?recalls and field safety corrective actions; ?post-market surveillance, including reporting of deaths or serious injuries and malfunctions that, if they were to recur, could lead to death or serious injury; ?post-market approval studies; and ?product import and export. The regulations to which we are subject are complex and have tended to become more stringent over time; see “Item 1. Business; Government Regulation” above for a summary of certain regulations to which we are subject. Regulatory changes could result in restrictions on our ability to carry on or expand our operations, higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales. The processes by which 510(k) clearance, grant of a de novo classification request, or PMA approval is obtained can be expensive and lengthy and require the payment of significant fees. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to 12 months, but may last longer. The FDA’s goal is to review de novo classification requests within 150 FDA review days, but presently, the current average review period is about eight months. The process of obtaining a PMA is much costlier and more uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process and generally takes one to three years, or even longer, from the time the application is submitted to the FDA until an approval is obtained. The process of obtaining regulatory clearances through the 510(k) process, de novo classification, or approvals through the PMA process to market a medical device in the United States or internationally can be costly and time-consuming, and we may not be able to obtain these clearances, grants of de novo classification, or approvals on a timely basis, if at all. In the United States, all of our currently commercialized medical device products, other than SECURE®-C have either received pre-market clearance under Section 510(k) of the FDCA or are exempt from pre-market review. If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for future products or modifications to existing products than we had expected, our product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could cause our sales to decline and potentially harm our ability to compete. In addition, if the FDA disagrees with our determination that a product we currently market is subject to an exemption from pre-market review, the FDA may require us to submit a 510(k), de novo, or PMA and may require us to cease distribution of the product and/or recall the product unless and until we obtain 510(k) or de novo clearance or PMA. Further, even with respect to those future products where a PMA is not required, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain the 510(k) or de novo clearances with respect to those products. The FDA may also reclassify devices currently on the market from Class II to Class III, which could result in additional regulatory burden requiring submission and approval of a PMA prior to marketing, or could result in the FDA rescinding a 510(k) for a previously cleared device. The FDA can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a device for many reasons, including: ?we may not be able to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction that our products are safe and effective for their intended uses; ?the data from our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials may be insufficient to support clearance or approval, where required; and ?the manufacturing process or facilities we use may not meet applicable requirements. In addition, the FDA may change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions which may prevent or delay approval or clearance of our products under development or impact our ability to modify our currently approved or cleared products on a timely basis. Most recently, the FDA has been required to dedicate a significant amount of its resources to the review and oversight of medical products intended for COVID-19 or other pandemic-related purposes. This strain on the FDA’s resources could lead to delays in the FDA’s review of new 510(k) or other marketing applications that are unrelated to COVID-19. It is also possible that, if we obtain new FDA regulatory clearances or approvals, the clearances or approvals may contain limitations on the indicated uses or may prohibit certain uses which may impact the marketability of the product. Any delay in, or failure to receive or maintain, clearance or approval for our medical device products under development could prevent us from generating revenue from these products or achieving profitability. Additionally, the FDA and other regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Regulatory enforcement or inquiries, or other increased scrutiny on us, could dissuade some surgeons from using our products and adversely affect our reputation and the perceived safety and efficacy of our products. In addition, even after we have obtained the proper regulatory approval to market a product, the FDA has the power to require us to conduct post marketing studies, such as a Section 522 Order. These studies can be very expensive and time-consuming to conduct. Failure to comply with those studies in a timely manner could result in the revocation of the 510(k) clearance for the product that is subject to such a Section 522 Order and the recall or withdrawal of the product, which could prevent us from generating sales from that product in the United States. Similarly, we must comply with numerous international laws and regulations in order to market our products outside of the United States; see “Item 1. Business; Government Regulation; International” above for a summary of certain international laws and regulations to which we are subject. As is the case in the United States, the applicable regulatory body may change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions which may prevent or delay approval or clearance of our products under development or impact our ability to modify our currently approved or cleared products on a timely basis. Any delay in, or failure to receive or maintain, clearance or approval for our products under development could prevent us from generating revenue from these products or achieving profitability. Conducting clinical studies to obtain clinical data that might be required as part of the clinical evaluation process can be expensive and time-consuming. Additionally, the regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Regulatory enforcement or inquiries, or other increased scrutiny on us, could dissuade some surgeons from using our products and adversely affect the perceived safety and efficacy of our products and our reputation. Failure to comply with applicable regulations could jeopardize our ability to sell our products and result in enforcement actions such as: ?untitled letters or warning letters; ?fines; ?injunctions; ?civil penalties; ?termination of distribution; ?recalls or seizures of products; ?delays in the introduction of products into the market; ?total or partial suspension of production; ?refusal of the FDA or other regulator to grant future clearances or approvals; ?withdrawals or suspensions of current clearances or approvals, resulting in prohibitions on sales of our products; ?refusal to grant export approvals; and/or ?in the most serious cases, criminal penalties. Any of these sanctions could result in higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales and have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.

In the United States, the procurement and transplantation of allograft bone tissue is subject to federal law pursuant to the NOTA, a criminal statute which prohibits the purchase and sale of human organs used in human transplantation, including bone and related tissue, for “valuable consideration.” NOTA permits reasonable payments associated with the removal, transportation, processing, preservation, quality control, implantation and storage of human bone tissue. We provide services in all of these areas in the United States, with the exception of removal and implantation, and receive payments for all such services. We make payments to tissue banks for their services related to recovering allograft bone tissue on our behalf. If NOTA is interpreted or enforced in a manner that prevents us from receiving payment for services we render or that prevents us from paying tissue banks or certain of our clients for the services they render for us, our business could be materially adversely affected. In addition, there is similar legislation in Europe and the UK which we must abide by, including Directive 2004/23/EC in relation to human tissues and cells requiring that donation be unpaid (except for expenses and inconvenience) and voluntary. We depend on a limited number of sources of human tissue for use in some of our regenerative biologics products and a limited number of entities to process the human tissue for use in those regenerative biologics products, and any failure to obtain tissue from these sources or to have the tissue processed by these entities for us in a timely manner will interfere with our ability to effectively meet demand for our regenerative biologics products incorporating human tissue. Less than five third-party suppliers currently supply all of our needs for allograft implants and products, other than those implants and products that we process ourselves. The processing of human tissue into our regenerative biologics products is very labor-intensive and it is therefore difficult to maintain a steady supply stream. In addition, due to seasonal changes in mortality rates, some scarce tissues used in our regenerative biologics products are at times in particularly short supply. We cannot be certain that our current supply of human tissue and allograft implants, plus any additional source that we identify in the future, will be sufficient to meet our needs. Our dependence on a small number of third-party suppliers and the challenges we may face in obtaining adequate supplies of human tissue involve several risks, including limited control over pricing, availability, quality and delivery schedules. In addition, any interruption in the supply of any human tissue component could materially harm our and our third-party suppliers’ ability to manufacture our regenerative biologics products until a new source of supply, if any, could be found. We may be unable to find a sufficient alternative supply channel in a reasonable time period or on commercially reasonable terms, if at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback laws and physician self-referral laws. Our relationships with surgeons, hospitals and our independent distributors are subject to scrutiny under these laws. Violations of these laws are punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including, in some instances, imprisonment and exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, including the Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Administration health programs. Because of the broad and far-reaching nature of these laws, we may be required to alter or discontinue one or more of our business practices. Healthcare fraud and abuse regulations are complex, and even minor irregularities can potentially give rise to claims that a statute or prohibition has been violated. Examples of laws that may affect our ability to operate include: ?the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs; ?federal false claims laws which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment to Medicare, Medicaid, or other government payors that are false or fraudulent; ?the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which created federal criminal laws that prohibit executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters; ?the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar laws regulating advertisement and consumer protections; ?the FCPA, which prohibits corrupt payments, gifts or transfers of value to foreign officials; ?the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which requires medical device companies to report ownership and investment interests by physicians and members of their immediate family as well as certain payments and other transfers of value, including gifts and other benefits, provided to physicians and certain other healthcare professionals licensed in the U.S. and to teaching hospitals; and ?foreign and U.S. state law and code equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws and disclosure of transfers of value and gift bans with respect to healthcare professionals, some of which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers. Possible sanctions for violation of these laws include monetary fines, civil and criminal penalties, exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs and forfeiture of amounts collected in violation of such prohibitions. Any violations of these laws, or any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could result in a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition. We have entered into consulting, royalty and other agreements with surgeons, including some who make referrals to us. In addition, some of our referring surgeons own our stock, which they either purchased in an arm’s length transaction on terms identical to those offered to non-referral sources or received from us as fair market value consideration for consulting services performed. While these transactions were structured with the intention of complying with all applicable laws, including the federal ban on physician self-referrals, commonly known as the “Stark Law,” state anti-referral laws and other applicable anti-kickback laws, it is possible that regulatory agencies may view these transactions as prohibited arrangements that must be restructured, or discontinued, or for which we could be subject to other significant penalties. Regulators also could prohibit us from accepting payment for products ordered or recommended by these surgeons. We would be materially and adversely affected if regulatory agencies interpret our financial relationships with surgeons who order our products to be in violation of applicable laws and we were unable to comply with applicable laws. This could subject us to monetary penalties for non-compliance, the cost of which could be substantial. To enforce compliance with the federal laws, the DOJ has increased its scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Dealing with investigations can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from the business. Additionally, if an investigation were initiated involving us and we decided to settle that investigation with the DOJ or other law enforcement agencies, we may be forced to agree to additional onerous and expensive compliance and reporting requirements for a period of years as part of a consent decree or corporate integrity agreement. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation on payments and other transfers of value made to healthcare professionals related to marketing and other activities. Some states mandate implementation of healthcare compliance programs, impose gift bans, and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians. The shifting commercial compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with different compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements. The scope and enforcement of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal or state regulatory and enforcement authorities might challenge our current or future activities under these laws. Plaintiffs’ attorneys acting on behalf of FCA Relators, who are incentivized to pursue claims against manufacturers by the potential to share in any monetary damages and penalties recovered by the government, also might initiate lawsuits that challenge our current or future activities under these laws. Any such challenges by regulatory authorities directly or by Relators suing on behalf of the government could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition to the penalties described above, any state or federal regulatory review or FCA lawsuit, regardless of the outcome, would be costly and time-consuming and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our operating results are directly dependent upon the sales and marketing efforts of not only our employees, but also our independent distributors. We expect our direct sales representatives and independent distributors to develop long-lasting relationships with the surgeons they serve. If our direct sales representatives or independent distributors fail to adequately promote, market and sell our products, our sales could significantly decrease. We face significant challenges and risks in managing our geographically dispersed distribution network and retaining the individuals who make up that network. If any of our direct sales representatives were to leave us, or if any of our independent distributors were to cease to do business with us, our sales could be adversely affected. Some of our independent distributors account for a significant portion of our sales volume, and if any such independent distributor were to cease to distribute our products, our sales could be adversely affected. In such a situation, we may need to seek alternative independent distributors or increase our reliance on our direct sales representatives, which may not prevent our sales from being adversely affected. If a direct sales representative or independent distributor were to depart and be retained by one of our competitors, we may be unable to prevent them from helping competitors solicit business from our existing customers, which could further adversely affect our sales. Because of the intense competition for their services, we may be unable to recruit or retain additional qualified independent distributors or to hire additional direct sales representatives to work with us. We may not be able to enter into agreements with them on favorable or commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Failure to hire or retain qualified direct sales representatives or independent distributors would prevent us from maintaining or expanding our business and generating sales. As we launch new products and increase our marketing efforts with respect to existing products, we will need to expand the reach of our marketing and sales networks. Our future success will depend largely on our ability to continue to hire, train, retain and motivate skilled direct sales representatives and independent distributors with significant technical knowledge in various areas. New hires require training and take time to achieve full productivity. If we fail to train new hires adequately, or if we experience high turnover in our sales force in the future, we cannot be certain that new hires will become as productive as may be necessary to maintain or increase our sales. If we are unable to expand our sales and marketing capabilities domestically and internationally, we may not be able to effectively commercialize our products, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The sales and purchase order cycle of our Enabling Technologies capital equipment products, currently the ExcelsiusGPS® platform, is lengthy because they are major capital items and their purchase generally requires the approval of senior management of hospitals, their parent organizations, purchasing groups, and government bodies, as applicable. In addition, sales to some of our customers are subject to competitive bidding or public tender processes. These approval and bidding processes can be lengthy. Further, the introduction of new products could adversely impact our sales cycle as customers take additional time to assess the benefits and costs of such products. As a result, it is difficult for us to predict the length of capital sales cycles and, therefore, the exact timing of capital sales. The above factors may contribute to fluctuations in our quarterly operating results. Because of these fluctuations, it is possible that in future periods our operating results will fall below the expectations of securities analysts or investors. If that happens, the market price of our stock would likely decrease.