Commitments and Contingencies | Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and legal proceedings Certain of the Company’s outstanding legal matters include speculative claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts of damages. The Company regularly evaluates developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of any potential liability and makes adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both the likelihood of there being any potential liability and the estimated amount of a loss related to the Company’s legal matters. With respect to the Company’s outstanding legal matters, based on its current knowledge, the Company’s management believes that the amount or range of a potential loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. The Company evaluated the outstanding legal matters and assessed the probability and likelihood of the occurrence of liability. Based on management’s estimates, the Company has recorded accruals of $2,221 and $1,800 as of December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, which is included in “Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities” in the consolidated balance sheets. The Company expenses legal fees in the period in which they are incurred. Cordial Effective October 2014, XpresSpa terminated its former Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“ACDBE”) partner, Cordial Endeavor Concessions of Atlanta, LLC (“Cordial”), in several store locations at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Cordial filed a series of complaints with the City of Atlanta, both before and after the termination, in which Cordial alleged, among other things, that the termination was not valid and that XpresSpa unlawfully retaliated against Cordial when Cordial raised concerns about the joint venture. In response to the numerous complaints it received from Cordial, the City of Atlanta required the parties to engage in two mediations. After the termination of the relationship with Cordial, XpresSpa sought to substitute two new ACDBE partners in place of Cordial. In April 2015, Cordial filed a complaint with the United States Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), which oversees the City of Atlanta with regard to airport ACDBE programs, and, in December 2015, the FAA instructed that the City of Atlanta review XpresSpa’s request to substitute new partners in lieu of Cordial and Cordial’s claims of retaliation. In response to the FAA instruction, pursuant to a corrective action plan approved by the FAA, the City of Atlanta held a hearing in February 2016 and ruled in favor of XpresSpa such substitution and claims of retaliation. Cordial submitted a further complaint to the FAA claiming that the City of Atlanta was biased against Cordial and that the City of Atlanta’s decision was wrong. In August 2016, the parties met with the FAA. On October 4, 2016, the FAA sent a letter to the City of Atlanta directing that the City of Atlanta retract previous findings on Cordial’s allegations and engage an independent third party to investigate issues previously decided by Atlanta. The FAA also directed that the City of Atlanta determine monies potentially due to Cordial. On January 3, 2017, XpresSpa filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Cordial and several related parties. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, tortious interference, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. XpresSpa is seeking damages, declaratory judgment, rescission/termination of certain agreements, disgorgement of revenue, fees and costs, and various other relief. On February 21, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2017, XpresSpa filed a first amended complaint against the defendants. On April 5, 2017, Cordial filed a motion to dismiss. On September 12, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On November 2, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss which was entered on November 13, 2017. On December 22, 2017, XpresSpa filed a notice of appeal, and on September 24, 2018, XpresSpa perfected its appellate rights and submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of New York, First Department appellate court. Oral arguments on the appeal went forward on March 20, 2019. On March 30, 2018, Cordial filed a lawsuit against XpresSpa, a subsidiary of XpresSpa, and several additional parties in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, alleging the violation of Cordial’s civil rights, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, conversion, retaliation, and unjust enrichment. Cordial has threated to seek punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, accounting, indemnification, and declaratory judgment as to the status of the membership interests of XpresSpa and Cordial in the joint venture and Cordial’s right to profit distributions and management fees from the joint venture. On May 3, 2018, the Court issued an order extending the time for the defendants to respond to Cordial’s lawsuit until June 25, 2018. On May 4, 2018, the defendants moved the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On June 5, 2018, the Court granted an extension of time for the defendants’ response until August 17, 2018. On August 9, 2018, the Court granted an additional extension of time for the defendants’ response until September 7, 2018, and thereafter provided another extension pending the Court’s consideration of XpresSpa’s Motion to Stay all action in the Georgia lawsuit, pending resolution of the New York lawsuit and the FAA action. On October 29, 2018, XpresSpa’s Motion to Stay was denied. Prior to resolution of the Motion to Stay, Cordial filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Motion”), seeking to enjoin the defendants and specifically XpresSpa, from, among other things, distributing any cash flow, net profits, or management fees, or otherwise expending resources beyond necessary operating expenses. XpresSpa filed an opposition and, in a decision entered December 26, 2018, the Court denied Cordial’s TRO Motion entirely. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on November 20, 2018. A Director's Determination was issued by the FAA in connection with the Part 16 Complaint ("Part 16 Proceeding") filed by Cordial against the City of Atlanta ("City") in 2017 ("Director's Determination"). The Company and Cordial were not parties to the FAA action, and had no opportunity to present evidence or otherwise be heard in such action. The Director's Determination concluded that the City was not in compliance with certain Federal obligations concerning the federal government's ACDBE program, including relating to the City's oversight of the Joint Venture Operating Agreement between Clients and Cordial, Cordial's termination, and Cordial's retaliation and harassment claims, and the City was ordered to achieve compliance in accordance with the Director's Determination. The Director's Determination does not constitute a Final Agency Decision and it is not subject to judicial review, pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2). Because the Company is not a party to the Part 16 Proceeding, the Company would not be considered "a party adversely affected by the Director's Determination" with a right of appeal to the FAA Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights. On August 7, 2019, the Company filed a response, advising the U.S. District Court that: (i) the Company is not party to the FAA proceeding and therefore had no opportunity to present evidence or otherwise be heard in such action; (ii) as non-party, the Company is not bound by the Director's Determination; and (iii) the FAA cannot dictate the interpretation or enforceability of the contract between Cordial and the Company, which is the subject of the U.S. District Court action initiated by Cordial and the New York State Court action initiated by the Company. In response to the numerous complaints it received from Cordial, the City of Atlanta required the parties to engage in mediation. On November 22, 2019, a Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) and a Confidential Payment Agreement (the “Payment Agreement”) have been executed by the applicable parties. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, all pending litigation was dismissed. Also, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement terms, the City agreed to approve new five-year leases for the Company and Cordial to operate as joint venture partners for spas located on Concourse A and Concourse C of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (“together, “Leases”). The City has approved the new Leases, and the Leases have been executed by the Company and the City. The parties are in the process of negotiating and completing an operating agreement. Such negotiations have been deferred during the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport shutdown due to the pandemic. Pursuant to the Payment Agreement, the Company has recorded an expense, made payment and accrued the balance of the amounts due thereunder that is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities. In re Chen et al. In March 2015, four former XpresSpa employees who worked at XpresSpa locations in John F. Kennedy International Airport and LaGuardia Airport filed a putative class and collective action wage-hour litigation in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. In re Chen et al. , CV 15‑1347 (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs claim that they and other spa technicians around the country were misclassified as exempt commissioned salespersons under Section 7(i) of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Plaintiffs also assert class claims for unpaid overtime on behalf of New York spa technicians under the New York Labor Law, and discriminatory employment practices under New York State and City laws. On July 1, 2015, the plaintiffs moved to have the court authorize notice of the FLSA misclassification claim sent to all employees in the spa technician job classification at XpresSpa locations around the country in the last three years. Defendants opposed the motion. On February 16, 2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report & Recommendation, recommending that the District Court Judge grant the plaintiffs’ motion. On March 1, 2016, the defendants filed Opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation, arguing that the District Court Judge should reject the Magistrate Judge’s findings. On September 23, 2016, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and conditionally certified the class. The parties held a mediation on February 28, 2017 and reached an agreement on a settlement in principle. On September 6, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. On September 15, 2017, the parties filed a motion for settlement approval with the Court. XpresSpa subsequently paid the agreed-upon settlement amount to the settlement claims administrator to be held in escrow pending a fairness hearing and final approval by the Court. On March 30, 2018, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order denying the motion without prejudice to renewal due to questions and concerns the Court had about certain settlement terms. On April 24, 2018, the parties jointly submitted a supplemental letter to the Court advocating for the fairness and adequacy of the settlement and appeared in Court on April 25, 2018 for a hearing to discuss the settlement terms in greater detail with the assigned Magistrate Judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court still had questions about the adequacy and fairness of the settlement terms, and the Judge asked that the parties jointly submit additional information to the Court addressing the open issues. The parties submitted such information to the Court on May 18, 2018. On August 21, 2019, the Court issued an Order denying the parties’ motion for preliminary approval of the revised settlement, as the Court still had concerns about several of the settlement terms. At the December 6, 2019 Status Conference with the Court, the Court reiterated its denial of preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement. The Court instructed a notice of pendency to be disseminated to putative collective members, who will then have a 60-day window to decide whether to participate in the case. On or about August 10, 2020, the parties entered into settlement agreements and are seeking a preliminary approval order from the Court. The Company retained joint counsel to represent the Company and the Binns. In January 2020, the Binns then retained separate counsel, and made a demand upon the Company to pay said counsel’s fees. In March 2020, the Company rejected the demand. On July 27, 2020, the Binns filed a complaint against the Company in Delaware Chancery Court regarding the Company’s rejection of the Binns’ demand for payment of counsel’s fees . This action sought declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the Company to pay counsel’s fees and was captioned Moreton Binn and Marisol Binn v. XpresSpa Group, Inc. f/k/a Form Holdings Corp. f/k/a XpresSpa Holdings, LLC , No. 2020-0623. The parties have settled this action, which was voluntarily dismissed on September 17, 2020, and the Company paid specified counsel fees. Binn et al v. FORM Holdings Corp. et al. On November 6, 2017, Moreton Binn and Marisol F, LLC, former stockholders of XpresSpa, filed a lawsuit against FORM Holdings Corp. (“FORM) and its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleged violations of various sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), material omissions and misrepresentations (negligent and fraudulent), fraudulent omission, expropriation, breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting, and unjust enrichment in the defendants’ conduct related to the Company’s acquisition of XpresSpa, and sought rescission of the transaction, damages, equitable and injunctive relief, fees and costs, and various other relief. On January 17, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. On February 28, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. By March 30, 2018, the motion to dismiss was fully briefed. On August 7, 2018, the Court ruled on the defendants’ motion, dismissing eight of the plaintiffs’ ten claims and denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the two remaining claims, related to the Exchange Act. On October 30, 2018, the Court ordered that the plaintiffs could file an amended complaint, and, in response, the defendants could move for summary judgment. Consistent with the Court’s Order, on November 16, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, modifying their allegations, and asserting claims pursuant to the Exchange Act and the Securities Act of 1933, as well as bringing a breach of contract claim. On December 17, 2018, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims. On February 1, 2019, the plaintiffs opposed defendant’s motion, requested discovery and cross-moved for partial summary judgement and filed an opposition to defendants’ motion and a counter motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants’ summary judgement motion and plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment were fully briefed as of March 15, 2019. On April 29, 2019, an emergency hearing was held before the Court in which the plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to preclude acceleration of the maturity on the Senior Secured Note. The Court entered a temporary restraining order, while allowing parties the opportunity to brief the issue. On May 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgement in full, dismissing all claims in the action. On July 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit. On July 1, 2019, the Court held oral argument on Binn’s motion for preliminary injunction. After hearing argument by both sides, the Court deferred action and ordered that the temporary restraining order remain in place. On July 23, 2019, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and vacated the temporary restraining order. On September 13, 2019, plaintiffs filed their appellate brief in the Second Circuit. As of December 13, 2019, plaintiffs’ appeal was fully briefed. Oral argument was scheduled for May 4, 2020. On May 8, 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Defendants. Binn, et al. v. Bernstein et al. On June 3, 2019, a suit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against FORM, five of its directors, as well as Rockmore, the Company’s previous senior secured lender and a senior executive of the lender. Although this action is brought by Morton Binn and Marisol F, LLC, it is asserted derivatively on behalf of the Company. Plaintiffs assert eight causes of action, including that certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making false statements concerning, inter alia, the merger and the independence of FORM’s board of directors and the valuation of the Company’s lease portfolio. Plaintiffs also assert common law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, faithless servant doctrine, and aiding and abetting certain of the directors’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 23, 2019. The court heard oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss on January 22, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. Kainz v. FORM Holdings Corp. et al. On March 20, 2019, a suit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against FORM, seven of its directors and former directors, as well as a managing director of Mistral Equity Partners (“Mistral”). The individual plaintiff, a shareholder of XpresSpa Holdings, LLC at the time of the merger in December 2016, alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false statements concerning, inter alia , the merger and the independence of FORM’s board of directors, violated Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, breached the merger agreement by making false and misleading statements concerning the merger and fraudulently induced the plaintiff into signing the joinder agreement related to the merger. On May 8, 2019, the Company and its directors and the managing director of Mistral filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 5, 2019, plaintiff opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion for a partial stay. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of June 19, 2019. On November 13, 2019, the matter was dismissed in its entirety. On December 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration to vacate the order and judgment, dismissing the action, and for leave to amend the complaint. The motion was fully briefed as of February 6, 2020. On April 1, 2020, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion in full. Plaintiff has 30 days to file a notice of appeal. On April 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 1, 2020 plaintiff filed his appellate brief. On June 16, 2020, the Second Circuit entered the parties’ non-dispositive stipulation, dismissing certain defendant-appellees, including the Company. On July 6, 2020, the remaining defendants filed their opposition brief. On July 27, 2020, the plaintiff filed their reply brief. On July 28, 2020, the Second Circuit marked plaintiff’s reply brief as defective because it was filed a week late. Subsequently, plaintiff moved to request permission to file a late reply brief. On January 11, 2021, the judgment of the Court was affirmed by the Second Circuit court. The Company and its directors continue to believe that this action is without merit and intend to defend the appeal. Route1 On or about May 23, 2018, Route1 Inc., Route1 Security Corporation (together, “Route1”) and Group Mobile Int’l, LLC (“Group Mobile”) commenced a legal proceeding against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Route1 and Group Mobile seek damages of $567,000 in relation to alleged breaches of a Membership Purchase Agreement entered into between Route1 and the Company on or about March 7, 2018, pursuant to which Route1 acquired the Company’s 100% membership interest in Group Mobile. The Company counterclaimed against the Plaintiffs for amounts owed to the Company in relation to the sale of Excluded Inventory and is seeking damages thereon. The Company delivered a draft amended counterclaim to the Plaintiffs on or around November 2019 seeking, among other things, damages. The Company is seeking the Plaintiffs’ consent to amend its counterclaim. Examinations for discovery were scheduled to take place in Toronto, Canada in June 2020. The action settled at mediation on or about September 17, 2020. The parties agreed to dismiss the claim and the counterclaim, subject to XpresSpa’s right to commence an application to seek rectification of certain shares and warrants that were issued in connection with the Member Purchase Agreement. On September 21, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice entered an Order dismissing, without costs, the action and counterclaim. XpresSpa was granted the Order seeking the rectification of the shares and warrant and that matter was completed in March 2021. Rodger Jenkins and Gregory Jones v. XpresSpa Group, Inc. In March 2019, Rodger Jenkins and Gregory Jones filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract of the stock purchase agreement related to the Company’s acquisition of Excalibur Integrated Systems, Inc. and seeks specific performance, compensatory damages and other fees, expenses and costs. When this action was first commenced, the plaintiffs had demanded cash or stock in the sum of $750. On or about January 3, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their pleading to increase their total demand to $1,500. On December 11, 2020, the court issued its decision and order on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment in which the court: (a) awarded plaintiffs damages in the sum of $750, plus prejudgment interest; (b) granted that portion of the Company’s motion dismissing Jenkins’s claim for $600 based on his having executed a written waiver of his right to receive that sum; and (c) denied both sides’ motions with respect to Jones’s claim to recover $150 and directed Jones’s claim to be tried. The court has stated that the trial on the remaining portion of Jones’s claim will occur in May 2021. We remain confident in the Company’s defenses to the remaining portion of Jones’s claim. We further believe that the Company has meritorious arguments with respect to the claims already decided against the Company, and, accordingly, the Company plans to appeal all unfavorable rulings following the trial of Jones’s remaining claim. EFP Capital Solutions LLC settlement In March 2019, a complaint was filed against the Company by EFP Capital Solutions LLC (“EFP”), the receivables factor of the Company’s vendor MobiPT, Inc. (“MobiPT”), relating to payments made incorrectly by the Company to MobiPT for receivables MobiPT had sold to EFP. The ensuing mediation resulted in the Company agreeing to pay EFP $165 for such payments, for which the Company recorded an expense. The Company made the final settlement installment payment on or about July 15, 2020. The claim against the Company is now fully resolved and the action has been dismissed as to the Company. The Company obtained a default judgment against MobiPT on October 27, 2020 and intends to seek reimbursement of $192 from MobiPT, but there is no assurance the Company will be successful. Kyle Collins v. Spa Products Import & Distribution Co., LLC et al This is a combined class action and California Private Attorney’s General Act (“PAGA”) action. Plaintiff seeks to recover wages, penalties and PAGA penalties for claims for (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest breaks, (3) failure to pay overtime, (4) inaccurate wage statements, (5) waiting time penalties, and (6) PAGA penalties of $100 per employee per pay period per violation. There are approximately 240 current and former employees in the litigation class. The parties agreed to mediation on May 26, 2020, however, due to COVID-19 the parties subsequently stayed all proceedings. The mediation session occurred on March 18, 2021and the parties reached a settlement in principle. In addition to those matters specifically set forth herein, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity, or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than the Company currently anticipates, could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In the event that an action is brought against the Company or one of its subsidiaries, the Company will investigate the allegation and vigorously defend itself. Leases XpresSpa is contingently liable to a surety company under certain general indemnity agreements required by various airports relating to its lease agreements. XpresSpa agrees to indemnify the surety for any payments made on contracts of suretyship, guaranty, or indemnity. The Company believes that all contingent liabilities will be satisfied by its performance under the specified lease agreements. |