Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of operations, the Company may become a party to legal proceedings. Based upon information currently available, management believes that such legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations except as provided below. Delaware Derivative Litigation Asbestos Workers’ Philadelphia Pension Fund, derivatively on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc., v. John Hewitt, Defendant, and Liberty Tax, Inc., Nominal Defendan t , Case No. 2017-0883, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on December 12, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that the Company's former CEO, John T. Hewitt (“Hewitt”), breached his fiduciary duties as an officer based upon certain allegations of misconduct on his part. The Plaintiff also alleges breach of fiduciary duty against Hewitt in his capacity as a director of LT, Inc. The Complaint seeks compensatory damages and attorney’s fees. No claim or relief is asserted against the Company, which is named solely as a Nominal Defendant. Erie County Employees Retirement System, derivatively on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc., v. John T. Hewitt, Defendant, and Liberty Tax, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2017-0914, brought a second derivative suit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on December 22, 2017. Plaintiff also alleges that Hewitt breached his fiduciary duties as an officer based upon certain allegations of misconduct on his part. The Plaintiff also alleges breach of fiduciary duty against Hewitt in his capacity as a director of the Company. The Complaint seeks to enjoin Hewitt from managing our business operations, and seeks compensatory damages and attorney’s fees. On December 27, 2017, the two above-referenced shareholder matters were consolidated into the case with the caption In Re: Liberty Tax, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2017-0883. On April 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint added Gordon D’Angelo, Ellen McDowell, Nicole Ossenfort, and John Seal, with Hewitt as individual defendants (the “Individual Defendants”) and asserted class action allegations. Plaintiff seeks (i) a declaration that the Individual Defendants have breached the Company's Nominating Charter; (ii) a declaration that the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties; (iii) an award to the Plaintiffs and the Class in the amount of damages sustained as a result of the Individual breaches; (iv) certification of the action as a class action; (v) an award to the Company in the amount of damages sustained as a result of the Individual Defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary duties; (vi) a grant of further appropriate equitable relief to remedy the Individual Defendants’ breaches, including injunctive relief; (vii) an award to Plaintiffs of the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and (viii) such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Company has answered the Amended Complaint and discovery is underway. The individuals have filed a notice of motion to dismiss. No briefing schedule has been set on the motion. A scheduling order has been entered which currently schedules trial in this matter to begin on March 18, 2019. Eastern District of New York Securities Litigation Rose Mauro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Tax, Inc., Edward L. Brunot, John T. Hewitt, and Kathleen E. Donovan , filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 12, 2018, Case No. 18 CV 245. Plaintiff filed a securities class action asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a second count for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. According to the complaint, throughout the class period, LT, Inc. allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hewitt created an inappropriate tone at the top; (2) the inappropriate tone at the top led to ineffective entity level controls over the organization; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about the operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Patrick Beland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Liberty Tax, Inc., Edward L. Brunot, John T. Hewitt, and Kathleen E. Donovan , filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on December 15, 2017, case number 17 CV 7327. Plaintiff filed a securities class action asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a second count for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. According to the complaint, throughout the class period, LT, Inc. allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hewitt created an inappropriate tone at the top; (2) the inappropriate tone at the top led to ineffective entity level controls over the organization; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about the business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. These actions were consolidated with the caption In Re Liberty Tax, Inc. Securities Litigation , Case No. 27 CV 07327 and IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund was appointed the Lead Plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff"). On June 12, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which removed Brunot as a defendant, and added additional securities claim based on Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 14-a3 and 14-a9. The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, among other things, asserts that the Company’s SEC filings over a multi-year period failed to disclose the alleged misconduct of the individual defendants and that disclosure of the alleged misconduct caused the Company’s stock price to drop and, thereby harm the purported class of shareholders. The Class Period is alleged to be October 1, 2013 through February 23, 2018. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on September 17, 2018. Lead Plaintiff will file its opposition within forty-five (45) days thereafter, and Defendants will have twenty-one (21) days to file their reply brief(s). Eastern District of Virginia Securities and Derivative Litigation RSL Senior Partners LLC, derivatively and on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc. v. Edward L. Brunot, John T. Hewitt, Kathleen E. Donovan, Gordon D’Angelo, John Garel, Thomas Herskovits, Robert M. Howard, Ross N. Longfield. Steven Ibbotson, Ellen M. McDowell, Nicole Ossenfort, George Robson and John Seal and Liberty Tax. Inc. (Nominal Defendant) , Case No. 18 cv 127, filed on March 7, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This shareholder derivative action was filed on behalf of the Company seeking to address the alleged wrongs of the Company's directors and officers. The complaint alleges that certain conduct created an inappropriate tone at the top, which resulted in the loss of key executives, employees, directors and otherwise harmed the Company. The complaint asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, 10b and 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The Complaint seeks the following relief: (a) declaring that Plaintiff may maintain this action on behalf of the Company, and that Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Company; (b) declaring that the Individual Defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company; (c) determining and awarding to the Company the damages sustained by it as a result of the violations set forth above from each of the Individual Defendants, jointly and severally, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon; (d) directing the Company and the Individual Defendants to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect the Company and its shareholders from a repeat of the damaging events described herein, including, but not limited to, putting forward for shareholder vote the following resolutions for amendments to the Company’s Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation and the following actions as may be necessary to ensure proper corporate governance policies: (1) a proposal to strengthen the Board’s supervision of operations and develop and implement procedures for greater shareholder input into the policies and guidelines of the board; (2) a provision to permit the Class A shareholders of the Company to nominate at least five candidates for election to the board; (3) a proposal to ensure the establishment of effective oversight of compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (4) a proposal to revise the Code of Conduct to include provisions prohibiting sexual harassment and discrimination, and governing the maintenance and disclosure of sexual and romantic relationships between individuals associated with the Company. (e) awarding the Company restitution from Individual Defendants, and each of them; (f) awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses; and (g) granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. No claim or relief is asserted against the Company, which is named solely as a Nominal Defendant. On July 30, 2018, various motions were filed: (i) Defendants Hewitt, McDowell, Ossenfort and Seal collectively moved to dismiss the Complaint; (ii) Defendants Garel, Herskovits, Howard, Ibbotson, Longfield, and Robson collectively moved to dismiss the Complaint; (iii) Defendants Brunot and Donovan collectively moved to dismiss the Complaint; (iv) Company moved to stay the action pending resolution of parallel state (Delaware) and/or federal (New York) proceedings. Plaintiff’s oppositions are due by August 31, 2018. Defendants’ replies to Plaintiff’s oppositions were filed on September 10, 2018. Franchise Litigation JTH Tax, Inc. and SiempreTax LLC v. Gregory Aime, Aime Consulting, LLC, Aime Consulting, Inc. and Wolf Ventures, Inc. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the defendants, former Company franchisees, on June 9, 2016, as amended on June 22, 2016, claiming the defendants breached the purchase and sale agreement (the “PSA”) entered between the parties on January 21, 2016 and that the defendants had failed to comply with the post termination obligations of the franchise agreements (together with the PSA, the “Aime Agreements”). The Company sought damages in an amount equal to three times the defendants’ earnings and profits, as well as injunctive relief to enforce the defendants to comply with the post termination obligations of the Aime Agreements, to be determined by the trier of fact. The Company specifically sought, in part, to enjoin the defendants from continued operation of a tax preparation business using the Company’s protected trademarks, enforcement of the non-compete provision of the Aime Agreements, and an order that the defendants assign all of the leases related to the franchised businesses to the Company. On July 1, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation finding a likelihood of success on the merits and recommending entry of the requested temporary restraining order (the “TRO”) in favor of the Company, which was adopted in part on August 3, 2016. On September 9, 2016, the defendants filed an answer and counterclaim against the Company, alleging breach of the PSA, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraud and seeking approximately $2.4 million in damages, plus future loss profits, punitive damages and other expenses. After a three -day bench trial, on January 13, 2017, the court vacated the TRO, finding in favor of the defendants. On February 15, 2017, the court issued its written opinion and order granting the defendants’ breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, denying the Company’s claims against the defendants and finding certain post termination obligations to be unenforceable. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants for approximately $2.7 million . The Company has accrued $2.7 million as of the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017 in connection with the judgment, which is recorded in "Accounts payable and accrued expense" in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company has filed an appeal of the judgment with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2018, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding to the District Court with instructions via the opinion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Courts finding that the Company breached the PSA first, however, the Court of Appeals concluded the District Court erred as a matter of law when it determined that Aime was entitled to lost profits based on the purported extension of the PSA buyback deadline. The Court of Appeals held the alleged extension was not supported by independent consideration and thus not enforceable. It remanded the case for the District Court to recalculate damages consistent with said opinion. On August 23, 2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing of the Fourth Circuit's decision. On September 5, 2018 the Fourth Circuit issued an order denying the petition for rehearing. On September 13, 2018 the Fourth Circuit issued a mandate that the judgment of the Fourth Circuit entered August 8, 2018 takes effect as of the same date of said filing. The matter has now officially be sent back to the District Court to recalculate damages consistent with the Fourth Circuit’s decision. The ultimate outcome of this action and the timing of such outcome is uncertain and there can be no assurance that the Company will benefit financially from such litigation. Class Action Litigation Broward Psychology P.A., v. JTH Tax, Inc . (Case 0:18-cv-60412). On February 26, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” persons. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that from March 10, 2014 to 2018, the Company allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (collectively, the “TCPA”), by sending a facsimile advertisement to plaintiff and other putative class members that either were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of the greater of actual damages or the sum of $ 500 for each violation and injunctive and other relief. Under the TCPA, the statutory remedy of $ 500 per violation may be trebled ( i.e. , $ 1,500 per violation) if the court finds the violations to be willful or knowing. On March 30, 2018 the Company filed a dispositive motion arguing that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue Company. By Order dated August 21, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion. The Company plans on filing a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 21, 2018 Order. Discovery in the case is proceeding. A mediation was held on September 20, 2018 and the case was settled. Rene Labrado v. JTH Tax, Inc. (Case BC 715076). On July 3, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles by a former employee for herself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” persons. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company allegedly violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including: unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep pay records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of California Business and Profession Code Section 17200. The Complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, injunctive relief and other damages. The Company highly contest the allegations set forth in the Complaint and plans on filing a dispositive motion. The Company intends to defend the case vigorously. The Company is also party to claims and lawsuits that are considered to be ordinary, routine litigation incidental to the business, including claims and lawsuits concerning the preparation of customers' income tax returns, the fees charged to customers for various products and services, relationships with franchisees, intellectual property disputes, employment matters, and contract disputes. Although the Company cannot provide assurance that it will ultimately prevail in each instance, it believes the amount, if any, it will be required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements in these claims will not have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. |