Commitments and Contingencies | Operating Leases The Company leases office and warehouse facilities under operating leases, which expire at various dates through 2022. The amounts reflected in the table below are for the aggregate future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable facility operating leases for properties that have not been abandoned as part of the restructuring plan. See Note 5 for additional details regarding the restructured leases. Under lease agreements that contain escalating rent provisions, lease expense is recorded on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Rent expense was $0.6 million and $0.9 million for years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, future minimum lease payments are as follows (in thousands): For the Year Ending December 31, 2018 860 2019 846 2020 735 2021 481 2022 369 Total minimum lease payments $ 3,291 Capital Leases In December 2014, the Company entered into a capital lease agreement providing for approximately $1.8 million in credit to lease up to 50 vehicles as part of a fleet lease program. As of December 31, 2017, the Company was leasing two vehicles under the capital lease which were included in “Property and equipment, net” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The original cost of leased assets was $86,000 and the associated accumulated depreciation was $54,000. The Company also leases manufacturing and warehouse equipment under capital leases, which expire at various dates through February 2020. Several of such leases were reclassified to the restructuring liability during 2016, and related assets were written off to restructuring expense for the year ended December 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, short-term capital lease liabilities of $126,000 and $173,000, respectively, are included as a component of current accrued liabilities, and the long-term capital lease liabilities of $146,000 and $332,000, respectively, are included as a component of long-term liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As December 31, 2017, the Company’s future minimum lease payments under capital lease agreements, are as follows (in thousands): For the Year Ending December 31, 2018 $ 136 2019 101 2020 50 Total minimum lease payments 287 Less amounts representing interest (19 ) Present value of minimum lease payments $ 268 Purchase Commitment As described in Note 4, upon closing of the sale of BioZone, the Company entered into a manufacturing and supply agreement whereby the Company is required to purchase a minimum of approximately $2.5 million of products per year from BioZone annually for an initial term of three years. If the minimum order quantities of specific products are not met, a $3.0 million minimum purchase of other products must be met in order to waive the shortfall, which is at 25% of the realized shortfall. Due to the timing of achieving the minimum purchase quantities, we are below these targets. As a result, we have reserved an amount to cover the estimated purchase commitment shortfall during the year ended December 31, 2017. Sponsorship and Endorsement Contract Liabilities The Company has various non-cancelable endorsement and sponsorship agreements with terms expiring through 2019. The total value of future contractual payments as of December 31, 2017 are as follows (in thousands): For the Years Ending December 31, 2018 2019 Total Outstanding Payments Endorsement $ 276 $ 62 $ 338 Sponsorship 144 55 199 Total future payments $ 420 $ 117 $ 537 Settlements Bakery Barn In May 2017, Bakery Barn, a supplier of our protein bars, filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company had failed to pay $1,406,079 owing for finished product manufactured by Bakery Barn, as well as packaging materials purchased by Bakery Barn to manufacture the Company’s protein bars. The Company filed an answer and counterclaims against Bakery Barn, alleging that Bakery Barn had breached the Manufacturing Agreement and the Quality Agreement by supplying the Company with stale, hardened, moldy or otherwise unsaleable protein bars, and that Bakery Barn’s breaches have caused the Company, at a minimum, several hundred thousand dollars in damages. On October 27, 2017, the parties settled their dispute and entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay Bakery Barn $350,000 on October 28, 2017, and an additional $352,416 by November 26, 2017, both of which have been paid. The parties also agreed that Bakery Barn would resume producing products for the Company under substantially the same terms embodied in the oral Manufacturing Agreement, until such time that the Manufacturing Agreement can be reduced to writing. The Company settled and recorded a gain on the settlement of accounts payable in its Statement of Operations for year ended December 31, 2017 for approximately $391,000. 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. 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 has agreed to pay CFG a sum of $3 million, consisting of a $1 million payment that was advanced by a related party on July 7, 2017, and subsequent $1 million installments to be paid by July 7, 2018 and July 7, 2019, respectively. The 2018 payment is accrued in current liabilities and the 2019 payment is accrued in long-term liabilities. The Company recorded a charge in its Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2017 for approximately $1.5 million, representing the discounted value of the unrecorded settlement amount and an additional $0.2 million, representing imputed interest. The Company has now concluded the finalization of all its major legacy endorsement deals. Arnold Schwarzenegger The Company was engaged in a dispute with Marine MP, LLC (“Marine MP”), Arnold Schwarzenegger (“Schwarzenegger”), and Fitness Publications, Inc. (“Fitness,” and together with Marine MP and Schwarzenegger, the “AS Parties”) concerning amounts allegedly owed under the parties’ Endorsement Licensing and Co-Branding Agreement (the “Endorsement Agreement”). In May 2016, the Company received written notice that the AS Parties were terminating the Endorsement Licensing and Co-Branding Agreement by and among the Company and the AS Parties, then the Company provided written notice to the AS Parties that it was terminating the Endorsement Agreement, and the AS Parties then commenced arbitration, which alleged that the Company breached the parties’ agreement and misappropriated Schwarzenegger’s likeness. The Company filed its response and counterclaimed for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On December 17, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “AS Parties Settlement Agreement”) with the AS Parties, effective January 4, 2017. Pursuant to the AS Parties Settlement Agreement, and to resolve and settle all disputes between the parties and release all claims between them, the Company agreed to pay the AS Parties (a) $1.0 million, which payment was released to the AS Parties on January 5, 2017, and (b) $2.0 million within six months of the effective date of the AS Parties Settlement Agreement. The Company paid the settlement in full as of September 30, 2017. The Company also has agreed that it will not sell any products from its Arnold Schwarzenegger product line, will donate to a charity chosen by Arnold Schwarzenegger any remaining usable product, and otherwise destroy any products currently in inventory. This inventory was written off to “Impairment of assets” in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the year ended December 31, 2016. In addition, in connection with the transaction, the 780,000 shares of Company common stock held by Marine MP were sold to a third party on January 4, 2017 in exchange for an aggregate payment by such third party of $1,677,000 to the AS Parties. Capstone Nutrition Agreements The Company entered into a series of agreements with Capstone Nutrition (“Capstone”) effective March 2, 2015, including an amendment (the “Amendment”) to a Manufacturing Agreement dated November 27, 2013 (as amended, the “Manufacturing Agreement”). Pursuant to the Amendment, Capstone was the Company’s nonexclusive manufacturer of dietary supplements and food products sold or intended to be sold by the Company. The Amendment included various agreements including amended pricing terms. The initial term per this Amendment was to end on January 1, 2022, and could have been extended for three successive 24-month terms, and included renewal options. The Company and Capstone entered into a Class B Common Stock Warrant Purchase Agreement (“Warrant Agreement”) whereby the Company could purchase approximately 19.9% of Capstone’s parent company, INI Parent, Inc. (“INI”), on a fully-diluted basis as of March 2, 2015. Pursuant to the Warrant Agreement, INI issued to the Company a warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase shares of INI’s Class B common stock, par value $0.001 per share, at an exercise price of $0.01 per share (the “Warrant Shares”). The Warrant could have been exercised if the Company was in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Amendment. The Company utilized the Black-Scholes valuation model to determine the value of the Warrant and recorded an asset of $977,000, which was accounted for under the cost method and assessed for impairment. The Warrant was included in “Investments, long-term” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2015. However, during the second quarter of 2016, the Company reassessed the value of the Warrant and considered it to be fully impaired as the Company no longer believed there was any remaining value to the Warrant. The Company also had recorded $1.5 million of prepaid expenses and other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2015, which were being amortized over the remaining life of the Manufacturing Agreement of 6.5 years. However, during the second quarter of 2016, the Company reassessed the Manufacturing Agreement, which was the basis of the prepaid asset, and considered the entire remaining balance of $1.4 million impaired as the Company no longer believed there was any remaining value to the Manufacturing Agreement. These conclusions were based in large part on the fact that Capstone sold its primary powder manufacturing facility during the second quarter of 2016, which significantly reduced its manufacturing capacity, and the dispute which is discussed below. In total, the Company recognized $2.4 million of impairment expense during year ended December 31, 2016 related to previously recorded Capstone-related assets. The Company and INI also entered into an option agreement (the “Option Agreement”). Subject to additional provisions and conditions set forth in the Option Agreement, at any time on or prior to June 30, 2016, the Company had the right to purchase for cash all of the remaining outstanding shares of INI’s common stock not already owned by the Company after giving effect to the exercise of the Warrant, based on an aggregate enterprise value, equal to $200.0 million. The fair value of the option was deemed de minimis as of the transaction date. The Company did not exercise the option to purchase the remaining outstanding shares of INI’s common stock and such option expired on June 30, 2016. The Company was engaged in a dispute with Capstone arising out of a Manufacturing Agreement between the parties. On November 7, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement (the “Capstone Settlement Agreement”), which terminated the Manufacturing Agreement. Under the Capstone Settlement Agreement, the Company paid cash to Capstone in the amount of $11.0 million. All pending litigation was dismissed with prejudice. The Capstone Settlement Agreement released all parties from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, suits, controversies or counterclaims that the parties have had, now have or thereafter can, shall or may have. The Company also issued a warrant to purchase 1,289,378 shares of the Company’s common stock to INI (the “Settlement Warrant”). The exercise price of the Settlement Warrant was $1.83 per share, with a term of four years. The Company valued the Settlement Warrant by utilizing the Black Scholes model at approximately $1.8 million. As of the settlement date, the Company had approximately $21.9 million in accounts payable and accrued liabilities associated with the Capstone liability. Based upon the amounts included herein, the Company recorded a gain of approximately $9.1 million based on the Capstone settlement. 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. As of December 31, 2017, the Company was involved in the following material legal proceedings described below. ThermoLife In January 2016, ThermoLife International LLC (“ThermoLife”), a supplier of nitrates to MusclePharm, filed a complaint against the Company in Arizona state court. In its complaint, ThermoLife alleges that the Company failed to meet minimum purchase requirements contained in the parties’ supply agreement and seeks monetary damages for the deficiency in purchase amounts. In March 2016, the Company filed an answer to ThermoLife’s complaint, denying the allegations contained in the complaint, and filed a counterclaim alleging that ThermoLife breached its express warranty to MusclePharm because ThermoLife’s products were defective and could not be incorporated into the Company’s products. Therefore, the Company believes that ThermoLife’s complaint is without merit. The lawsuit continues to be in the discovery phase. Former Executive Lawsuit In December 2015, the Company accepted notice by Mr. Richard Estalella (“Estalella”) to terminate his employment as the Company’s President. Although Estalella sought to terminate his employment with the Company for “Good Reason,” as defined in Estalella’s employment agreement with the Company (the “Employment Agreement”), the Company advised Estalella that it deemed his resignation to be without Good Reason. In February 2016, Estalella filed a complaint in Colorado state court against the Company and Ryan Drexler, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, alleging, among other things, that the Company breached the Employment Agreement, and seeking certain equitable relief and unspecified damages. The Company believes Estalella’s claims are without merit. As of the date of this report, the Company has evaluated the potential outcome of this lawsuit and recorded the liability consistent with its policy for accruing for contingencies. The discovery phase of the lawsuit has concluded and the Company is preparing for a revised trial date expected to commence in May 2018. Insurance Carrier Lawsuit The Company is engaged in litigation with an insurance carrier, Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (“Liberty”), arising out of Liberty’s denial of coverage. In 2014, the Company sought coverage under an insurance policy with Liberty for claims against directors and officers of the Company arising out of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Liberty denied coverage, and, on February 12, 2015, the Company filed a complaint in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado against Liberty claiming wrongful and unreasonable denial of coverage for the cost and expenses incurred in connection with the SEC investigation and related matters. Liberty removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, which in August 2016 granted Liberty’s motion for summary judgment, denying coverage and dismissing the Company’s claims with prejudice, and denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The Company filed an appeal in November 2016. The Company filed its opening brief on February 1, 2017 and Liberty filed its response brief on April 7, 2017. The Company filed its reply brief on May 5, 2017. The case moved to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In October 2017 the 10th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Liberty. We are currently working with Liberty to determine what amounts are recoverable under the policy that fall outside of the litigation. IRS Audit On April 6, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) selected the Company’s 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 the Company’s 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 its Federal income tax. On October 5, 2016, the IRS commenced an audit of the Company’s employment and withholding tax liability for 2014. The IRS is contending 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 $0.4 million related to employment taxes and $4.9 million related to federal tax withholding and penalties. Additionally, the IRS is asserting 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 intends to pursue this matter vigorously through the IRS appeal process. Due to the uncertainty associated with determining the Company’s liability for the asserted taxes and penalties, if any, and to the Company’s 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 recorded an estimate for its potential liability, if any, associated with these taxes. |