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 4 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 $0.2 million and $0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of March 31, 2018, future minimum lease payments are as follows (in thousands): For the Year Ending December 31, Remainder of 2018 $ 645 2019 845 2020 735 2021 481 2022 369 Thereafter — Total minimum lease payments $ 3,075 Capital Leases As of March 31, 2018, the Company was leasing two vehicles under a fleet leasing agreement which were included in “Property and equipment, net” in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The original cost of leased assets was $86,000 and the associated accumulated depreciation was $60,000 as of March 31, 2018. As of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, short-term capital lease liabilities of $119,000 and $126,000, respectively, were included as a component of current accrued liabilities, and the long-term capital lease liabilities of $119,000 and $146,000, respectively, were included as a component of long-term liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of March 31, 2018, the Company’s future minimum lease payments under capital lease agreements, are as follows (in thousands): For the Year Ending December 31, Remainder of 2018 $ 99 2019 101 2020 50 Total minimum lease payments 250 Less amounts representing interest (12 ) Present value of minimum lease payments $ 238 Purchase Commitment Upon the completion 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 provided for the estimated purchase commitment shortfall adjustment in the three months ended March 31, 2018. 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 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 other 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. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company recorded a charge of $0.1 million, representing imputed interest. 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 March 31, 2018, 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 was preparing for trial which was scheduled to commence on May 7, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Court vacated the trial in contemplation of the parties’ settlement of this matter. Settlement discussions are in progress. 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. The Company is 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. 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 March 31, 2018 are as follows (in thousands): For the Years Ending December 31, Remainder of 2018 2019 Total Outstanding Payments Endorsement $ 191 $ 62 $ 253 Sponsorship 67 55 122 Total future payments $ 258 $ 117 $ 375 |