COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Government Investigations and Litigation In December 2021, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California (the “U.S. Attorney”) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) informed the Company that they had opened investigations relating to the Company and our former CEO, Andrew Wiederhorn, and were formally seeking documents and materials concerning, among other things, the Company’s December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. (“FCCG”), transactions between those entities and Mr. Wiederhorn, as well as compensation, extensions of credit and other benefits or payments received by Mr. Wiederhorn or his family from those entities prior to the merger. On May 10, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) indicted the Company on two violations of Section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for directly and indirectly extending and/or arranging for the extension of credit in 2019 and 2020 to former CEO Andrew Wiederhorn in the amount of $2.65 million. These charges allege that the Company, through its subsidiary Fatburger N.A., transferred approximately $600,000 to Mr. Wiederhorn in the form of a personal loan on January 30, 2019, and lent approximately $2 million in 2020 to its former parent company FCCG which indirectly funded a personal loan from FCCG to Mr. Wiederhorn. The indictment also includes charges against Mr. Wiederhorn, the Company’s former CFO, Rebecca Hershinger, and the Company’s former tax advisor, William Amon, on violations of various federal tax and other laws related to loans from FCCG to Mr. Wiederhorn. Concurrently with the DOJ’s charges, the SEC filed a complaint against the Company, claiming violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), 13(k), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3, and 14a-9 thereunder. The SEC’s claims pertain principally to allegations that, for fiscal periods covering 2017 through 2020, the Company failed to disclose certain related party transactions, failed to disclose the salaries of Mr. Wiederhorn’s adult children working at the Company, failed to maintain proper books and records and internal accounting controls, made false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s liquidity and use of proceeds from certain transactions, and directly or indirectly extended credit to Mr. Wiederhorn in the form of a personal loan. The SEC’s complaint also names Mr. Wiederhorn, Ms. Hershinger, and the Company’s SVP of Finance, Ron Roe, as defendants. The SEC is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil monetary penalties. The Company is evaluating these charges and intends to vigorously defend itself against them. Derivative Litigation 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 current and former 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. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, which the Court denied in an oral ruling on February 11, 2022 and subsequent written order on May 25, 2022. On April 7, 2022, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting forth the key dates and deadlines that would govern the litigation, including a discovery cutoff of March 24, 2023 and trial date of February 5-9, 2024. To date, the parties have engaged in substantial written discovery, though no depositions have been taken. On February 3, 2023, the Company’s board of directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”), which retained independent counsel and moved for a six-month stay of the action pending resolution of the SLC's investigation, which the Court granted on February 17, 2023. On April 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay of the proceedings, and entered a Second Amended Pre-Trial Scheduling Order resetting key dates and deadlines, including a fact discovery cutoff of August 4, 2023, and a trial date to be set sometime after May 10, 2024. On May 4, 2023, a new SLC was appointed, and on May 8, 2023, the new SLC moved for a six-month stay of the action pending resolution of its investigation. On May 10, 2023, the United States of America moved for a partial stay of discovery pending its own investigation. On May 31, 2023, the Court granted the United States of America’s Motion, except that it granted a six-month stay of all proceedings in the action, and on that basis deemed the SLC’s motion to be moot. On December 4, 2023, the stay of all proceedings was extended through March 3, 2024, and on March 1, 2024, the stay of all proceedings was extended to June 3, 2024. On June 3, 2024, the Court granted the United States’ request to further extend the stay of all proceedings pending resolution of the charges in United States v. Wiederhorn et al., 2:24-CR-295-RGK (C.D. Cal.). Defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. 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 defense costs for the lawsuit and any related litigation, which may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, and thus could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The lawsuit and any related litigation also may be time-consuming and divert the attention and resources of our management. 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 current and former 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"). Argument on the Motion was heard on November 17, 2022, and again on February 23, 2023, and the Court took its decision under advisement. The Court denied the motion on April 5, 2023. On May 2, 2023, the Court entered a pre-trial scheduling order setting key dates and deadlines that will govern the litigation, including a fact discovery cutoff of February 2, 2024, and a trial date to be set sometime after October 15, 2024. On July 21, 2023, the Company’s board of directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”), which retained independent counsel and moved for a six-month stay of the action pending resolution of the SLC’s investigation. On August 10, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the case for six months, conditioned upon Defendants continuing to review the documents in response to Plaintiffs' First Requests for Production and to produce non-privileged responsive documents to the SLC and to Plaintiffs no later than December 1, 2023. The Court granted the stipulation the same day. In accordance with the stipulation, Defendants produced documents to the SLC and Plaintiffs by the December 1, 2023 deadline. Subsequently, the Court granted multiple stays of the proceedings in this case, currently through November 4, 2024. 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 defense costs for the lawsuit and any related litigation, which may exceed coverage provided under our insurance policies, and thus could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The lawsuit and any related litigation also may be time-consuming and divert the attention and resources of our management. Other Litigation Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA) On June 7, 2024, plaintiff Mitchell Kates, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted material facts necessary to make statements not misleading in the Company’s reports filed with the SEC under the 1934 Act related to the subject matter of the government investigations and litigation discussed above, the Company’s handling of these matters and its cooperation with the government. 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. As this matter is still in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. 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. The court has vacated the current trial date and has not yet reset the trial date. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, however, reserves have been recorded on the balance sheet of FAT Brands 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 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. SBN FCCG LLC v FCCGI (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 650197/2023) On January 13, 2023, SBN filed another complaint against FCCG in New York state court for an indemnification claim stemming from a lawsuit in Oklahoma City regarding the same lease portfolio formerly managed by Fog Cap (the “OKC Litigation”), and a bankruptcy proceeding involving Fog Cap (the “Bankruptcy Proceeding”). SBN alleges that under a February 2008 stock purchase agreement, Fog Cutter is required to indemnify SBN and its affiliates. According to the complaint, SBN has, at the time of filing the complaint, incurred costs subject to indemnification of approximately $12 million. On March 11, 2024, the court issued an order granting FCCG’s motion to dismiss SBN’s complaint without prejudice to refile the complaint, if at all, once the underlying proceedings (the OKC Litigation and the Bankruptcy Proceeding) were complete. On April 10, 2024, SBN filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's order dismissing SBN's complaint. We are unable at this time to express any opinion as to the eventual outcome of this matter or the possible range of loss, if any. 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 September 29, 2024, 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. |