Commitments and Contingencies | 10. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters Texas Patron Tax In 2015, the Company reached a settlement with the State of Texas over the payment of the state’s Patron Tax on adult club customers. To resolve the issue of taxes owed, the Company agreed to pay $10.0 million in equal monthly installments of $119,000, without interest, over 84 months, beginning in June 2015, for all but two non-settled locations. The Company agreed to remit the Patron Tax on a monthly basis, based on the current rate of $5 per customer. For accounting purposes, the Company has discounted the $10.0 million at an imputed interest rate of 9.6%, establishing a net present value for the settlement of $7.2 million. As a consequence, the Company has recorded an $8.2 million pre-tax gain for the third quarter ending June 30, 2015, representing the difference between the $7.2 million and the amount previously accrued for the tax. In March 2017, the Company settled with the State of Texas for one of the two remaining unsettled Patron Tax locations. To resolve the issue of taxes owed, the Company agreed to pay a total of $687,815 with $195,815 paid at the time the settlement agreement was executed followed by 60 equal monthly installments of $8,200 without interest. The aggregate balance of Patron Tax settlement liability, which is included in long-term debt in the consolidated balance sheets, amounted to $4.2 million and $4.5 million as of December 31, 2018 and September 30, 2018, respectively. A Declaratory judgment action was brought by five operating subsidiaries of the Company to challenge a Texas Comptroller administrative rule related to the $5 per customer Patron Tax Fee assessed against Sexually Oriented Businesses. An administrative rule attempted to expand the fee to cover venues featuring dancers using latex cover as well as traditional nude entertainment. The administrative rule was challenged on both constitutional and statutory grounds. On November 19, 2018, the Court issued an order that a key aspect of the administrative rule is invalid based on it exceeding the scope of the Comptroller’s authority. Constitutional challenges remain and will be resolved at trial. Indemnity Insurance Corporation As previously reported, the Company and its subsidiaries were insured under a liability policy issued by Indemnity Insurance Corporation, RRG (“IIC”) through October 25, 2013. The Company and its subsidiaries changed insurance companies on that date. On November 7, 2013, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered a Rehabilitation and Injunction Order (“Rehabilitation Order”), which declared IIC impaired, insolvent and in an unsafe condition and placed IIC under the supervision of the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware (“Commissioner”) in her capacity as receiver (“Receiver”). The Rehabilitation Order empowered the Commissioner to rehabilitate IIC through a variety of means, including gathering assets and marshaling those assets as necessary. Further, the order stayed or abated pending lawsuits involving IIC as the insurer until May 6, 2014. On April 10, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered a Liquidation and Injunction Order With Bar Date (“Liquidation Order”), which ordered the liquidation of IIC and terminated all insurance policies or contracts of insurance issued by IIC. The Liquidation Order further ordered that all claims against IIC must be filed with the Receiver before the close of business on January 16, 2015 and that all pending lawsuits involving IIC as the insurer are further stayed or abated until October 7, 2014. As a result, the Company and its subsidiaries no longer have insurance coverage under the liability policy with IIC. Currently, there are several civil lawsuits pending against the Company and its subsidiaries. The Company has retained counsel to defend against and evaluate these claims and lawsuits. We are funding 100% of the costs of litigation and will seek reimbursement from the bankruptcy receiver. The Company filed the appropriate claims against IIC with the Receiver before the January 16, 2015 deadline and has provided updates as requested; however, there are no assurances of any recovery from these claims. It is unknown at this time what effect this uncertainty will have on the Company. As previously stated, since October 25, 2013, the Company has obtained general liability coverage from other insurers, which have covered and/or will cover any claims arising from actions after that date. As of December 31, 2018, we have 2 unresolved claims out of the original 71 claims. General The Company has been sued by a landlord in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas for a Houston Bombshells which was under renovation in 2015. The plaintiff alleges RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.’s subsidiary, BMB Dining Services (Willowbrook), Inc., breached a lease agreement by constructing an outdoor patio, which allegedly interfered with the common areas of the shopping center, and by failing to provide Plaintiff with proposed plans before beginning construction. Plaintiff also asserts RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is liable as guarantor of the lease. The lease was for a Bombshells restaurant to be opened in the Willowbrook Shopping Center in Houston, Texas. Both RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and BMB Dining Services (Willowbrook), Inc. have denied liability and assert that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its claimed damages. Further, BMB Dining Services (Willowbrook), Inc. asserts that Plaintiff affirmatively represented that the patio could be constructed under the lease and has filed counter claims and third-party claims against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s manager asserting that they committed fraud and that the landlord breached the applicable agreements. While the case was tried to a jury in late September 2018 and an adverse judgment was entered in January 2019, such judgment remains modifiable, substantial disputes remain related to the legal impact of the jury’s verdict, and the parties are currently engaged in motion practice to resolve their disputes. It is unknown at this time whether the resolution of this uncertainty will have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition. On June 23, 2014, Mark H. Dupray and Ashlee Dupray filed a lawsuit against Pedro Antonio Panameno and our subsidiary JAI Dining Services (Phoenix) Inc. (“JAI Phoenix”) in the Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County. The suit alleged that Mr. Panameno injured Mr. Dupray in a traffic accident after being served alcohol at an establishment operated by JAI Phoenix. The suit alleged that JAI Phoenix was liable under theories of common law dram shop negligence and dram shop negligence per se. After a jury trial proceeded to a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against both defendants, in April 2017 the Court entered a judgment under which JAI Phoenix’s share of compensatory damages is approximately $1.4 million and its share of punitive damages is $4 million. In May 2017, JAI Phoenix filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, motion for new trial. The Court denied this motion in August 2017. In September 2017, JAI Phoenix filed a notice of appeal. In June 2018, the matter was heard by the Arizona Court of Appeals. On November 15, 2018 the Court of Appeals vacated the jury’s verdict and remanded the case to the trial court. It is anticipated that a new trial will occur at some point in the future. JAI Phoenix will continue to vigorously defend itself. Settlements of lawsuits for the quarters ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 total $60,000 and $27,000, respectively. As of December 31, 2018 or September 30, 2018, the Company has nothing accrued related to settlement of lawsuits. |