Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation and Investigations James Harris and Adam Vignola, derivatively on behalf of FAT Brands, Inc. v. Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, Andrew Wiederhorn, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC and Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc., and FAT Brands Inc., nominal defendant (Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2021-0511) On June 10, 2021, plaintiffs James Harris and Adam Vignola (“Plaintiffs”), putative stockholders of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery nominally on behalf of the Company against the Company’s directors (Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi and Andrew Wiederhorn (the “Individual Defendants”)), and the Company’s majority stockholders, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC and Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. (collectively with the Individual Defendants, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets arising out of the Company’s December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. On August 5, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Motion”). Argument on the Motion was heard on February 11, 2022. At the conclusion of the argument, the Court indicated that it would deny the Motion with respect to most claims and most Defendants, but would reserve final decision until after more fully considering the arguments as to the unjust enrichment claim and one of the Individual Defendants. On May 25, 2022, the Court ultimately denied the Motion in its entirety. Defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. As this matter is still in the early stages and discovery is just underway, we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. This lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. However, subject to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our directors in connection with the lawsuit and any related litigation or settlements amounts, which may be time-consuming, result in significant expense and divert the attention and resources of our management. An unfavorable outcome may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and could harm our reputation. James Harris and Adam Vignola, derivatively on behalf of FAT Brands, Inc. v. Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi, Andrew Wiederhorn and Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC, and FAT Brands Inc., nominal defendant (Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2022-0254) On March 17, 2022, plaintiffs James Harris and Adam Vignola (“Plaintiffs”), putative stockholders of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery nominally on behalf of the Company against the Company’s directors (Squire Junger, James Neuhauser, Edward Rensi and Andrew Wiederhorn (the “Individual Defendants”)), and the Company’s majority stockholder, Fog Cutter Holdings, LLC (collectively with the Individual Defendants, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s June 2021 recapitalization transaction. On May 27, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (the "Motion"). No hearing date has been set for the Motion. Defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. As this matter is still in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. This lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. However, subject to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our directors in connection with the lawsuit and any related litigation or settlements amounts, which may be time-consuming, result in significant expense and divert the attention and resources of our management. An unfavorable outcome may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and could harm our reputation. Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-01820) On March 18, 2022, plaintiff Robert J. Matthews, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”), alleging that the defendants are responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in the Company’s reports filed with the SEC under the 1934 Act related to the LA Times story published on February 19, 2022 about the company and its management. The plaintiff alleges that the Company’s public statements wrongfully inflated the trading price of the Company’s common stock, preferred stock and warrants. The plaintiff is seeking to certify the complaint as a class action and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On April 25, 2022, Kerry Chipman, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick in the United States District Court for the Central Division of California, asserting substantially the same claims as those made by Matthews in the above-referenced lawsuit. On May 2, 2022, the Court entered an order consolidating the actions filed by Matthews and Chipman under the caption In re FAT Brands Inc. Securities Litigation. On June 13, 2022, the Court appointed plaintiff Robert Matthews as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as lead counsel in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 27, 2022. On July 19, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation to stay the litigation so that they can engage in mediation, which is scheduled to occur in August 2022. As this matter is still in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit nor the success of the parties' anticipated mediation. Government Investigations The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California (the “U.S. Attorney”) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission informed the Company in December 2021 that they have opened investigations relating to the Company and our Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Wiederhorn, and are formally seeking documents and materials concerning, among other things, the Company’s December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., transactions between these entities and Mr. Wiederhorn, and compensation, extensions of credit and other benefits or payments received by Mr. Wiederhorn or his family. The Company is cooperating with the government regarding these matters, and we believe that the Company is not currently a target of the U.S. Attorney’s investigation. At this early stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the outcome or duration of the government investigations. Stratford Holding LLC v. Foot Locker Retail Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. 5:12-cv-772-HE) In 2012 and 2013, two property owners in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma sued numerous parties, including Foot Locker Retail Inc. and our subsidiary Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. (now known as Fog Cutter Acquisition, LLC), for alleged environmental contamination on their properties, stemming from dry cleaning operations on one of the properties. The property owners seek damages in the range of $12.0 million to $22.0 million. From 2002 to 2008, a former Fog Cutter subsidiary managed a lease portfolio, which included the subject property. Fog Cutter denies any liability, although it did not timely respond to one of the property owners’ complaints and several of the defendants’ cross-complaints and thus is in default. The parties are currently conducting discovery, and the matter is scheduled for trial for October 2022. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, however, reserves have been recorded on the balance sheet relating to this litigation. There can be no assurance that the defendants will be successful in defending against these actions. SBN FCCG LLC v FCCGI (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS172606) SBN FCCG LLC (“SBN”) filed a complaint against Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc. (“FCCG”) in New York state court for an indemnification claim (the “NY case”) stemming from an earlier lawsuit in Georgia regarding a certain lease portfolio formerly managed by a former FCCG subsidiary. In February 2018, SBN obtained a final judgment in the NY case for a total of $0.7 million, which included $0.2 million in interest dating back to March 2012. SBN then obtained a sister state judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS172606 (the “California case”), which included the $0.7 million judgment from the NY case, plus additional statutory interest and fees, for a total judgment of $0.7 million. In May 2018, SBN filed a cost memo, requesting an additional $12,411 in interest to be added to the judgment in the California case, for a total of $0.7 million. In May 31, 2019, the parties agreed to settle the matter for $0.6 million, which required the immediate payment of $0.1 million, and the balance to be paid in August 2019. FCCG wired $0.1 million to SBN in May 2019, but has not yet paid the remaining balance of $0.5 million. The parties have not entered into a formal settlement agreement, and they have not yet discussed the terms for the payment of the remaining balance. The Company is involved in other claims and legal proceedings from time-to-time that arise in the ordinary course of business, including those involving the Company’s franchisees. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. As of Jun 26, 2022, the Company had accrued an aggregate of $5.1 million for the specific matters mentioned above and claims and legal proceedings involving franchisees as of that date. |