Commitments and Contingencies | Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies Settlements Manchester City Football Group The Company was engaged in a dispute with City Football Group Limited (“CFG”), the owner of Manchester City Football Group, concerning amounts allegedly owed by the Company under a sponsorship agreement with CFG (the “Sponsorship Agreement”). In August 2016, CFG commenced arbitration in the United Kingdom against the Company, seeking approximately $8.3 million for the Company’s purported breach of the Sponsorship Agreement. On July 28, 2017, the Company approved a Settlement Agreement (the “CFG Settlement Agreement”) with CFG effective July 7, 2017. The CFG Settlement Agreement represents a full and final settlement of all litigation between the parties. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company agreed to pay CFG a sum of $3 million, which was recorded as accrued expenses in 2017. The settlement consists of a $1 million payment that was advanced by a related party on July 7, 2017, a $1 million installment paid on July 7, 2018 and a subsequent $1 million installment payment to be paid by July 7, 2019. Of this amount, the Company has remitted $0.3 million. During the three months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, the Company recorded a charge of $19,000 and $29,000, respectively, and during the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, the Company recorded a charge of $38,000 and $58,000, respectively. This charge, representing imputed interest, is included in “Interest and other expense, net” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. Nutrablend Matter On February 27, 2020, Nutrablend, a manufacturer of MusclePharm products, filed an action against MusclePharm in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, claiming approximately $3.1 million in allegedly unpaid invoices. These invoices relate to the third and fourth quarter of 2019, and a liability has been recorded in the books for the related periods. On September 25, 2020, the parties successfully mediated the case to a settlement and the Company agreed to (i) pay approximately $3.1 million (“Owed Amount”) in monthly payments (“Monthly Payments”) from September 1, 2020 through June 30, 2023 and (ii) issue monthly purchase orders (“Purchase Orders”) at minimum amounts accepted by Nutrablend. MusclePharm agreed to issue Purchase Orders in a combined total amount of at least (i) $1,500,000 from September 1, 2020 through November 30, 2020; (ii) $1,800,000 from December 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021; (iii) $2,100,000 from March 31, 2021 through May 31, 2021; (iv) $2,100,000 from June 1, 2021 through August 31, 2021; and (v) $1,400,000 from September 1, 2021 through October 30, 2021. Beginning on November 1, 2021, MusclePharm will be required to issue monthly Purchase Orders to Nutrablend in a minimum amount of $700,000 until the Owed Amount is paid in full to Nutrablend. In the event that MusclePharm pays the Owed Amount in full before September 1, 2021, MusclePharm is entitled to a rebate on all completed Purchase Orders. Further, once the monthly payments, and any additional payments that MusclePharm has made on the Owed Amount, reduce the outstanding balance of the Owed Amount to below $2.0 million, MusclePharm is eligible for an extension of a line of credit from Nutrablend in an amount of up to $3.0 million. Contingencies In the normal course of business or otherwise, the Company may become involved in legal proceedings. The Company will accrue a liability for such matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When only a range of possible loss can be established, the most probable amount in the range is accrued. If no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range, the minimum amount in the range is accrued. The accrual for a litigation loss contingency might include, for example, estimates of potential damages, outside legal fees and other directly related costs expected to be incurred. The Company provides disclosures for material contingencies when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may be incurred. In assessing whether a loss is a reasonable possibility, the Company may consider the following factors, among others: the nature of the litigation, claim or assessment, available information, opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisors, and the experience gained from similar cases. As of June 30, 2020, the Company was involved in the following material legal proceedings described below. ThermoLife International In January 2016, ThermoLife, a supplier of nitrates to MusclePharm, filed a complaint against the Company in Arizona state court. ThermoLife alleged that the Company failed to meet minimum purchase requirements contained in the parties’ supply agreement. In March 2016, the Company filed counterclaims alleging that ThermoLife’s products were defective. Through orders issued in September and November 2018, the court dismissed MusclePharm’s counterclaims and found that the Company was liable to ThermoLife for failing to meet its minimum purchase requirements. The court held a bench trial on the issue of damages in October 2019, and on December 4, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of ThermoLife and against the Company in the amount of $1.6 million, comprised of $0.9 million in damages, interest in the amount of $0.3 million and attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $0.4 million. The Company recorded $1.6 million in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2018. In the interim, the Company filed an appeal, which is in the process of being briefed, and has posted bonds in the total amount of $0.6 million in order to stay execution on the judgment pending appeal. Of the $0.6 million, $0.25 million (including fees) was paid by Mr. Drexler on behalf of the Company on December 31, 2019. See “Note 7. Debt” for additional information. Subsequent to December 31, 2019, the balance of $0.35 million was secured by a personal guaranty from Mr. Drexler, while the associated fees of $12,500 was paid by the Company. For both the three months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, interest expense recognized on the awarded damages was $22,000. For both the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, interest expense recognized on the awarded damages was $44,000. The Company intends to continuously vigorously pursuing its defenses, including on appeal. White Winston Select Asset Fund Series MP-18, LLC et al., v MusclePharm Corp., et al., (Nev. Dist. Ct.; Cal. Superior Court; Colorado Dist. Ct.; Mass. Super. Ct.) On August 21, 2018, White Winston Select Asset Fund Series MP-18, LLC and White Winston Select Asset Fund, LLC (together “White Winston”) initiated a derivative action against MusclePharm and its directors (collectively the “director defendants”). White Winston alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by improperly approving the refinancing of three promissory notes issued by MusclePharm to Drexler (the “Amended Note”), in exchange for $18.0 million in loans. White Winston alleges that this refinancing improperly diluted their economic and voting power and constituted an improper distribution in violation of Nevada law. In its complaint, White Winston sought the appointment of a receiver over MusclePharm, a permanent injunction against the exercise of Drexler’s conversion right under the Amended Note, and other unspecified monetary damages. On September 13, 2018, White Winston filed an amended complaint, which added a former MusclePharm executive, as a plaintiff (together with White Winston, the “White Winston Plaintiffs”). On December 9, 2019, the White Winston Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, in which they added allegations relating to the resignation of MusclePharm’s auditor, Plante & Moran PLLC (“Plante Moran”). MusclePharm has moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That motion has not yet been fully briefed. Along with its complaint, the White Winston Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction enjoining the exercise of Drexler’s conversion right under the Amended Note. On August 23, 2018, the Nevada district court issued an ex parte TRO. On September 14, 2018, the court let the TRO expire and denied the White Winston Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding, among other things, that the White Winston Plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying action and failed to establish irreparable harm. Following the court’s decision, MusclePharm filed a motion seeking to recoup the legal fees and costs it incurred in responding to the preliminary injunction motion. On October 31, 2019, the court awarded MusclePharm $56,000 in fees and costs. The White Winston Plaintiffs have appealed that award. Due to the uncertainty associated with determining our liability, if any, and due to our inability to ascertain with any reasonable degree of likelihood, as of the date of this report, the outcome of the trial, the Company has not recorded an estimate for its potential liability. On June 17, 2019, the White Winston Plaintiffs moved for the appointment of a temporary receiver over MusclePharm, citing Plante Moran’s resignation. The court granted the White Winston Plaintiffs’ request to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion, but the date for that hearing was not set as of the date hereof. On July 30, 2019, the White Winston Plaintiffs filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, seeking access to MusclePharm’s books and records. MusclePharm has answered the petition, asserting as a defense that the request does not have a proper purpose. A trial on the petition has been set for February 25, 2021. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. IRS Audit On April 6, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) selected our 2014 Federal Income Tax Return for audit. As a result of the audit, the IRS proposed certain adjustments with respect to the tax reporting of our former executives’ 2014 restricted stock grants. Due to the Company’s current and historical loss position, the proposed adjustments would have no material impact on the Company’s Federal income tax. On October 5, 2016, the IRS commenced an audit of our employment and withholding tax liability for 2014. The IRS contends that the Company inaccurately reported the value of the restricted stock grants and improperly failed to provide for employment taxes and Federal tax withholding on these grants. In addition, the IRS is proposing certain penalties associated with the Company’s filings. On April 4, 2017, the Company received a “30-day letter” from the IRS asserting back taxes and penalties of approximately $5.3 million, of which $4.4 million related to withholding taxes, specifically, income withholding and Social Security taxes, and $0.9 million related to penalties. Additionally, the IRS asserts that the Company owes information reporting penalties of approximately $2.0 million. The Company’s counsel has submitted a formal protest to the IRS disputing on several grounds all of the proposed adjustments and penalties on the Company’s behalf, and the Company has been pursuing this matter vigorously through the IRS appeal process. An Appeals Conference was held with the IRS in Denver, Colorado on July 31, 2019. At the conference, the Company made substantial arguments challenging the IRS’s claims for employment taxes and penalties. On December 16, 2019, a further Appeals Conference was held with the IRS by telephone. At the telephone conference, the Appeals Officer confirmed that he agreed with the Company’s argument that the failure to deposit penalties should be conceded by the IRS. The failure to deposit penalties total about $2.0 million. Thus, with this concession, the IRS’s claims have been reduced from approximately $7.3 million to about $5.3 million. The remaining issue in dispute in this matter involves the fair market value of restricted stock units in the Company granted to certain former officers (the “Former Officers”) of the Company under Internal Revenue Code § 83. The Company and the IRS disagree as to the value of the restricted stock on the date of the grants, i.e., October 1, 2014. The Company and the IRS have exchanged expert valuation reports on the fair market value of the stock and have had extensive negotiations on this issue. The parties, however, have not been able to reach an agreement with respect to the value of the stock. The IRS has also made parallel claims regarding the restricted stock units against the Former Officers of the Company. The IRS has asserted that the Former Officers received ordinary income from the stock grants, and that they owe additional personal income taxes based on the fair market value of the stock. The Former Officers’ cases, unlike the Company’s case, are pending before the United States Tax Court. In the Tax Court litigation, the Former Officers are challenging the IRS’s determinations regarding the fair market value of the restricted stock grants on October 1, 2014. The Former Officers have separate counsel from the Company. The same IRS Appeals Officer and Revenue Agents assigned to the Company’s case are also involved in the cases for the Former Officers. Throughout the proceedings, the Company has argued to the IRS that it is the Former Officers who are directly and principally liable for the amount of any tax due, and not the Company. The Former Officers cases were scheduled for trial in Tax Court on March 9, 2020. The trial of the cases was continued by the Court on February 4, 2020. The basis for the continuance was that the IRS and the Former Officers had made progress toward a settlement of the valuation issue involving the grants of the restricted stock. The outcome of these settlement negotiations will be relevant to the Company’s case. The Company is closely monitoring the settlement discussions between the IRS and the Former Officers. The Tax Court has ordered the Former Officers to file status reports regarding progress of their settlement negotiations with the IRS on or before October 22, 2020. Due to the uncertainty associated with determining our liability for the asserted taxes and penalties, if any, and to our inability to ascertain with any reasonable degree of likelihood, as of the date of this report, the outcome of the IRS appeals process, the Company has not recorded an estimate for its potential liability, if any, associated with these taxes. On August 22, 2018, Richard Estalella filed an action against the Company and two other defendants in the Colorado District Court for the County of Denver, seeking damages arising out of the IRS’s assertion of tax liability and penalties relating to the 2014 restricted stock grants. The Company has answered Estalella’s complaint, asserted counterclaims against Estalella for his failure to ensure that all withholding taxes were paid in connection with the 2014 restricted stock grants, and filed cross-claims against a valuation firm named in the action for failing to properly value the 2014 restricted stock grants for tax purposes. The Company, on the other hand, is relying on a separate valuation report prepared by a different valuation firm in its defense to the IRS case. This new valuation firm supports the Company’s position. The Company is waiting on the next steps from the court and will continue to vigorously litigate the matter. 4Excelsior Matter On March 18, 2019, 4Excelsior, a manufacturer of MusclePharm products, filed an action against MusclePharm in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, claiming approximately $6.2 million in damages relating to allegedly unpaid invoices, as well as approximately $7.8 million in consequential damages. On January 27, 2020, MusclePharm filed a counterclaim against 4Excelsior seeking unidentified damages relating to, among other things, 4Excelsior’s failure to fulfill a purchase order. MusclePharm also moved to strike 4Excelsior’s consequential damages on the grounds that they are unrecoverable under the Uniform Commercial Code. The court denied that motion, and the action has proceeded to discovery. The Company has a liability of $5.6 million and $5.3 million as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. This liability, which represents past due invoices (May 2018 through March 2019) plus interest, is recorded in “Accounts Payable” in the consolidated balance sheets. Trial has not yet been set, although a Trial Setting Conference was set for December 17, 2020. On November 16, 2020, the Company and 4Excelsior entered into a stipulation of settlement that provided that the Company would pay to 4Excelsior a total of $4,750,000, in four monthly payments of $70,000, beginning January 5, 2021, and thereafter in monthly payments of $100,000. The parties have not yet entered into a settlement agreement giving effect to the stipulation of settlement. |