XML 35 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 28, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation SEC Complaint On August 2, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a civil complaint (the “SEC Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada naming the Company and one of its executive officers, Virland Johnson, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, as defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”). Pursuant to an agreed-upon Order of the Court, on May 28, 2024, the Company settled its litigation with the SEC. The Settlement Agreement provided, in pertinent part: “Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint (except as provided herein in paragraph 12 and except as to personal and subject matter jurisdiction, which [the Company] admits), [the Company] hereby consents to the entry of the final Judgment in the form attached hereto (the “Final Judgment”) and incorporated by reference herein, which, among other things: “(a) permanently restrains and enjoins [the Company] from violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5]; and (c)[sic] orders [the Company] to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $250,000 under Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)).” The SEC has agreed to accept four quarterly payments from the Company, each in the amount of $62,500. The Settlement Agreement is attached to the Order as Exhibit 1, both of which documents may be viewed at https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/doc1/115110470966. The SEC Complaint's remaining allegations relate to financial, disclosure and reporting violations against the executive officer under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5. The SEC Complaint also alleges various claims against the executive officer under Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2. The SEC continues to seek a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and an officer-and-director bar against the executive officer. The foregoing is only a general summary of the SEC Complaint, which may be accessed on the SEC’s website at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2021/lr25155.htm. Skybridge On December 29, 2016, the Company served a Minnesota state court complaint for breach of contract on Skybridge Americas, Inc. (“SA”), the Company’s primary call center vendor throughout 2015 and most of 2016. The Company and SA held a mediation session in July 2020. Trial was held in August 2020 and, on February 1, 2021, the District Court assessed damages against the Company in the amount of approximately $715,000 plus interest, fees, and costs and attorneys’ fees of $475,000. In subsequent proceedings, the Appeals Court affirmed the District Court judgment. Of the total amount awarded to SA, less the funds that the Company had previously deposited with the District Court, SA remained entitled to approximately $422,000 of statutory interest, which obligation was assumed by the buyer in connection with the Company’s disposition of ARCA and its subsidiaries. On April 10, 2024, SA sold its judgment to an otherwise unaffiliated third party for the face value of the judgment and the interest accrued thereon through that date (an aggregate of $433,920.03), plus accrued legal fees (in the amount of $18,123.50) to which SA was entitled in accordance with the terms of the underlying agreement with the Company and with the judgment. The purchaser agreed to forbear from enforcing the judgment, subject to the Company’s repayment or his conversion thereof. In connection with the third-party’s forbearance, the Company issued its promissory note to such person in the initial principal amount of 147,956.47, which bears interest at the rate of 10% per annum, and, as with the underlying judgment, is convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at a fixed per-share conversion price of $2.60. GeoTraq On or about April 9, 2021, GeoTraq, Gregg Sullivan, Tony Isaac, and we, among others, resolved all of their claims that related to, among other items, the Company’s acquisition of GeoTraq in August 2017, all post-acquisition activities, and Mr. Sullivan’s post-acquisition employment relationship with GeoTraq (all of such claims, the “GeoTraq Matters”). The resolution was effectuated through the parties’ execution and delivery of a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Agreement of Claims (the “GeoTraq Settlement Agreement”). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company, on its own behalf and on behalf of GeoTraq and Mr. Isaac, agreed to tender to Mr. Sullivan an aggregate of $1.95 million (the “GeoTraq Settlement Consideration”) in the following manner: (i) $250,000, which was tendered in cash on or about the date of the Settlement Agreement and (ii) up to 10 quarterly installments of not less than $170,000 that commenced on June 1, 2021, and continued not less frequently than every three months thereafter (the “GeoTraq Installments”). The Company may tender the GeoTraq Installments in cash or in the equivalent value of shares of its common stock (the value of the shares to be determined by a formula set forth in the Settlement Agreement), in either case at the Company’s discretion. The Company may also prepay one or more GeoTraq Installments in full or in part at any time or from time to time either in cash or in shares of its common stock (a “GeoTraq Prepayment”). If the Company elected to prepay one or more GeoTraq Installments with shares of its common stock, Mr. Sullivan reserved the right not to consent to a tender thereof in excess of 50% of the value of that specific GeoTraq Prepayment; however, Mr. Sullivan was restricted in the reasons for which he can refuse to provide his written consent. The number of shares of the Company’s common stock to be issued upon any GeoTraq Prepayment is determined by a different formula than the one to be utilized for a GeoTraq Installment. On March 17, 2023, the Company converted 5,185 of Mr. Sullivan’s Series A-1 Preferred shares and issued 103,707 shares of the Company’s common stock as payment for its quarterly installment. On June 1, 2023, the Company converted 7,697 of Mr. Sullivan’s Series A-1 Preferred shares into 153,941 shares of the Company’s common stock in payment of its June 30, 2023 quarterly installment. On September 1, 2023, the Company converted 14,471 of Mr. Sullivan’s Series A-1 Preferred shares into 289,421 shares of the Company’s common stock in payment of its September 30, 2023 quarterly installment. As of September 30, 2023, the full balance due under the Settlement Agreement had been repaid and the remaining 1,505 shares of Mr. Sullivan’s Series A-1 Preferred shares were returned to the Company for cancellation without any further consideration. The parties to the Settlement Agreement released and forever discharged one another from any and all known and unknown claims that were asserted or could have been asserted arising out of the GeoTraq Litigation Matters. Alixpartners, LLC On October 19, 2022, Alixpartners, LLC filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, styled Alixpartners, LLC, plaintiff/petitioner, against JanOne Inc., Index No. 653877/2022. Plaintiff alleged the breach of an agreement and sought damages in the amount of approximately $345,000. The Company denied that obligation. After extensive negotiations, the parties reached a settlement, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay to Alixpartners the sum of $125,000 in two tranches and to provide a confession of judgment in its favor in the amount of approximately $450,000, which represented the amount sought in the complaint plus interest thereon. The confession of judgment will be null and void and the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice upon the Company tendering both tranches timely. The Company tendered both settlement payments in May 2023, and the complaint was subsequently dismissed and, accordingly, the Confession of Judgment was rendered null and void. Sieggreen In a matter pending in the United States District Court for the District Of Nevada, Case No. 2:21-cv-01517-CDS-EJY, styled as Sieggreen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Live Ventures Incorporated, Jon Isaac, and Virland A. Johnson, Defendants, the Company was added as a defendant on March 6, 2023, and was served on March 23, 2023. Plaintiff has alleged causes of action against the Company for (i) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c) promulgated thereunder. In June 2023 the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted and provided Plaintiff with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On October 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint. The Company strongly disputes and denies all of the allegations contained therein and will continue to defend itself vigorously against the claims. Main/270 The Company is a defendant in an action filed on April 11, 2022, in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, styled, Trustees Main/270, LLC, Plaintiff, vs ApplianceSmart, Inc. and JANONE, Inc., Defendant, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01938-ALM-EPD. The Company was a guarantor of the lease between the Plaintiff and ApplianceSmart, Inc. Plaintiff alleged a cause of action against the Company in respect of the guaranty and seeks approximately $90,000 therefor. Plaintiff also seeks approximately $1,420,000 against ApplianceSmart and the Company on a joint and several basis. The Company and Live Ventures, the parent company of ApplianceSmart, have an agreement, pursuant to which all attorney’s fees and any judgment will be divided equally between the parties. Nevertheless, the Company does not believe that it is obligated to Plaintiff in that amount and the parties continue to negotiate a potential settlement. Westerville Square In an attempt to recover payments due under a lease, in 2021, Westerville Square, Inc., as the landlord, initiated a civil action against the Company, styled Westerville Square, Inc. v. Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio, Case No. 19 CV 8627. The case was stayed during the bankruptcy proceedings of ApplianceSmart, Inc., and was reinstated on June 7, 2021. The landlord is currently seeking $120,000, which amount is disputed by the Company. Effective June 4, 2023, the parties settled the matter, pursuant to which settlement the Company tendered the sum of $110,000 to the landlord, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Other Commitments On December 30, 2017, the Company disposed of its retail appliance segment and sold ApplianceSmart to Live Ventures, a related party. In connection with that sale, as of January 2, 2021, the Company accrued an aggregate amount of future real property lease payments of approximately $767,000 which represented amounts guaranteed or which may have been owed under certain lease agreements to three third-party landlords in which the Company either remained the counterparty, was a guarantor, or had agreed to remain contractually liable under the lease (“ApplianceSmart Leases”). A final decree was issued by the court on February 28, 2022, upon the full satisfaction of the Plan, at which time ApplianceSmart emerged from Chapter 11. During the year ended December 30, 2023, the Company reversed approximately $637,000 of the accrual, as the Company is no longer liable for two of these guarantees upon ApplianceSmart’s emergence from bankruptcy. As of December 30, 2023, a balance of approximately $130,000 remains as an accrued liability due to an ongoing dispute concerning one of the leases. The Company and Live Ventures have agreed to divide in half between them any ultimate balance owing thereunder and any attorneys’ fees expended in relation thereto.. The Company is party from time to time to other ordinary course disputes that we do not believe to be material to our financial condition as of September 28, 2024.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration