| Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Leases Medley leases office space in New York City and San Francisco under non-cancelable lease agreements that expire at various times through September 2023 . Rent expense amounted to $2.3 million , $2.4 million and $2.5 million for each of the years ending December 31, 2018 , 2017 and 2016. As of December 31, 2018 future minimum rental payments under non-cancelable lease agreements are as follows (in thousands): 2019 $ 2,710 2020 2,833 2021 2,470 2022 2,431 Thereafter 1,823 Total future minimum lease payments $ 12,267 On July 21 2018, the Company entered into a sublease agreement with a third party for the sublease of its San Francisco office. The term of the sublease commenced on August 31, 2018 and expires on January 31, 2021. Sublease income for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $0.1 million and is excluded from the rent expense amounts above. Minimum sublease income for each of the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020 will be $0.4 million . Minimum sublease income for the year ended December 31, 2021 will be less than $0.1 million . Consolidation of Business Activities During the first quarter of 2018, the Company initiated the consolidation of its business activities to its New York office. The Company believes this will enhance operations by consolidating origination, underwriting and asset management operations and personnel in a single location. During year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded $2.7 million in severance costs related to the consolidation of its business activities to its New York office. In addition, the company incurred a $0.2 million loss from subleasing its San Francisco office during the year ended December 31, 2018. Capital Commitments to Funds As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Company had aggregate unfunded commitments of $0.3 million to certain long-dated private funds. Other Commitments In April 2012, the Company entered into an obligation to pay to a third party a fixed percentage of management and incentive fees received by the Company from SIC. The agreement was entered into contemporaneously with the $10.0 million non-recourse promissory notes that were issued to the same parties (Note 8). The two transactions were deemed to be related freestanding contracts and the $10.0 million of loan proceeds were allocated to the contracts using their relative fair values. At inception, the Company recognized an obligation of $4.4 million representing the present value of the future cash flows expected to be paid under this agreement. As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, this obligation amounted to $3.0 million and $3.8 million , respectively, and is recorded as revenue share payable, a component of accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. The change in the estimated cash flows for this obligation is recorded in other income (expense), net on the consolidated statements of operations. On January 31, 2019, the Company entered into a termination agreement with the lenders which would become effective upon the closing of the Company's pending merger with SIC. In accordance with the provisions of the termination agreement, the Company would pay the lenders $6.5 million on or prior to the merger closing date, reimburse the lenders for their out of pocket legal fees and enter into a six month $6.5 million promissory note. The promissory note would bear interest at seven percentage points over the LIBOR Rate, as defined in the termination agreement. Such consideration would be for the full satisfaction of the two non-recourse promissory notes disclosed in Note 8 as well as the Company's obligation above. Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims incidental to the conduct of its business. Its business is also subject to extensive regulation, which may result in regulatory proceedings against it. Except as described below, the Company is not currently party to any material legal proceedings. One of the Company's subsidiaries, MCC Advisors LLC, was named as a defendant in a lawsuit on May 29, 2015, by Moshe Barkat and Modern VideoFilm Holdings, LLC (“MVF Holdings”) against MCC, MOF II, MCC Advisors LLC, Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics LLP A/K/A Deloitte ERG (“Deloitte”), Scott Avila (“Avila”), Charles Sweet, and Modern VideoFilm, Inc. (“MVF”). The lawsuit is pending in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Central District, as Case No. BC 583437. The lawsuit was filed after MCC, as agent for the lender group, exercised remedies following a series of defaults by MVF and MVF Holdings on a secured loan with an outstanding balance at the time in excess of $65 million . The lawsuit sought damages in excess of $100 million . Deloitte and Avila have settled the claims against them in exchange for payment of $1.5 million . On June 6, 2016, the court granted the Medley defendants’ demurrers on several counts and dismissed Mr. Barkat’s claims with prejudice except with respect to his claim for intentional interference with contract. On March 18, 2018, the court granted the Medley defendants’ motion for summary adjudication with respect to Mr. Barkat’s sole remaining claim against the Medley Defendants for intentional interference. Now that the trial court has ruled in favor of the Medley defendants on all counts, the only remaining claims in the Barkat litigation are MCC and MOF II’s affirmative counterclaims against Mr. Barkat and MVF Holdings, which MCC and MOF II are diligently prosecuting. On August 29, 2016, MVF Holdings filed another lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Central District, as Case No. BC 631888 (the “Derivative Action”), naming MCC Advisors LLC and certain of Medley’s employees as defendants, among others. The plaintiff in the Derivative Action, asserts claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, interference with prospective economic advantage, fraud, and declaratory relief. MCC Advisors LLC and the other defendants believe the causes of action asserted in the Derivative Action are without merit and all defendants intend to continue to assert a vigorous defense. All proceedings in the Derivative Action have been stayed as a result of the chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of MVF, which were commenced on May 16, 2018. Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley Management Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15, 2017 and amended on March 9, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, “Class Action 1”). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No. 3:18-cv-100 (“Class Action 2”). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy, Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:18-cv-101 (“Class Action 3”) (together with Class Action 1 and Class Action 2, the “Virginia Class Actions”). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc. (as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the “Pennsylvania Class Action”) (together with the Virginia Class Actions, the “Class Action Complaints”). The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in, American Web Loan’s payday lending activities as a result of a loan to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1. In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan. In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various times from February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan in 2017. By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their claims, without prejudice, against Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP and Medley Capital Corporation. On October 22, 2018, the parties to Class Action 2 settled. On October 29, 2018, the plaintiffs in Class Action 2 stipulated to the dismissal of their claims against all defendants in Class Action 2 (including Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation), with prejudice. Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube never made any loans or provided financing to, or had any other relationship with, American Web Loan. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification from American Web Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with respect to the claims in the Class Action Complaints. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube believe the alleged claims in the Class Action Complaints are without merit and they intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. On January 25, 2019, two purported class actions were commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by alleged stockholders of Medley Capital Corporation, captioned, respectively, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No. 650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No. 650510/2019 (together with the Lax Action, the “New York Actions”). Named as defendants in each complaint are Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Medley Capital Corporation (“MCC”), Medley Management Inc., Sierra Income Corporation, and Sierra Management, Inc. (“Sierra”). The complaints in each of the New York Actions allege that the individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger of MCC with and into Sierra, and that the other defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts are sought. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the New York Actions are without merit and they intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. On February 11, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was commenced in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by FrontFour Capital Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd., captioned FrontFour Capital Group LLC, et al. v. Brooke Taub, et al., Case No. 2019-0100 (the “Delaware Action”). Named as defendants in the complaint are Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Medley Management Inc. (“Medley Management”), Sierra Income Corporation (“Sierra”), and Medley Capital Corporation (“MCC”). The complaint alleges that the individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties to MCC stockholders in connection with the proposed merger of MCC with and into Sierra, and that Medley Management and Sierra aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin the March 8, 2019 vote of MCC stockholders on the proposed merger and enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 9, 2018, by and between MCC and Sierra. The plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite simultaneously with their complaint, seeking an expedited trial prior to the March 8, 2019 stockholder vote or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction hearing followed by an expedited trial as soon as the court’s schedule permits. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Delaware Action are without merit and they intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. On January 25, 2019, two purported class actions were commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by alleged stockholders of Medley Capital Corporation, captioned, respectively, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No. 650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No. 650510/2019 (together with the Lax Action, the “New York Actions”). Named as defendants in each complaint are Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Sierra Income Corporation, and Sierra Management, Inc. The complaints in each of the New York Actions allege that the individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger of MCC with and into Sierra, and that the other defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts are sought. On February 27, 2019, the Court entered a stipulated scheduling order requiring that defendants respond to the complaints 45 days following the later of (a) the stockholder vote on the proposed merger and (b) plaintiffs’ filing of a consolidated, amended complaint. A preliminary conference is scheduled to take place on April 16, 2019. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the New York Actions are without merit and they intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. At this time, we are unable to determine whether an unfavorable outcome from these matters is probable or remote or to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. MARILYN S. ADLER, v. MEDLEY CAPITAL LLC et. al. (Supreme Court of New York, March 2019). Marilyn Adler, a former employee who served as a Managing Director of Medley Capital LLC, has filed suit in the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Part, against Medley Capital LLC, MCC Advisors, Medley SBIC GP, LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management Inc., as well as Brook Taube, and Seth Taube, individually. Ms. Adler alleges that she is due in excess of $6.5 million in compensation based upon her role with Medley’s SBIC Fund. Her claims are for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, tortious interference, as well as a claim for an accounting of funds maintained by the defendants. The lawsuit was filed on March 1, 2019 and is in its very initial stages. The Company believes the claims are without merit, intends to vigorously defend them, and is contemplating counterclaims against Ms. Adler. While management currently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or overall trends in consolidated results of operations, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis. The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory actions when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no liability is established. Employment Agreements In connection with the Company's pending merger with SIC, the pre-IPO owners entered into employment agreements which would become effective upon the successful completion of the merger. Each employment agreement sets forth a base salary, which is subject to change at the discretion of the Board or compensation committee of the post-merged entity. The initial term of the employment agreements range from 24 to 30 months. The combined initial base salaries of the pre-IPO members would be $3.0 million. Under the employment agreements, each pre-IPO owner is eligible to receive each year a short-term incentive paid in cash and a long-term incentive in the form of an equity award, each paid after the end of the year. Each employment agreement provides that the post merged entity's Board or compensation committee will establish a target annual bonus for each year of no less than a specified percentage of each pre-IPO owner's base salary and will establish performance and other objectives for the year for such annual bonus, in consultation with management. During their first year of employment, the combined target annual bonuses could amount up to $12.6 million of which $4.7 million would consist of cash and $7.9 million in the form of restricted stock units which would vest over a three year period. The employment agreements also set forth bonuses for 2018 which the Board or the compensation committee of the post-merger company may increase in recognition of performance in excess of performance objectives. The aggregate 2018 bonuses to the pre-IPO owners amount to $12.6 million of which $4.7 million would be payable in cash and $7.9 million in the form of restricted stock units which would vest over a three year period. As the 2018 bonus amounts per the employment agreements are not effective until the closing of the merger they were not accrued for as of December 31, 2018. Actual bonuses to the pre-IPO owners accrued for as of December 31, 2018 were $0.7 million. The long-term equity incentive will be made in the form of a RSU award, vesting in three equal annual installments. The cash and equity award portions of the annual bonuses paid under the employment agreements will be subject to recoupment by the Combined Company to the extent required by applicable law (including without limitation Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Act) and/or the rules and regulations of the NYSE. |
