The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Although the amount of any liability that could arise with respect to these actions cannot be determined with certainty, in the Company’s opinion, any such liability will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, consolidated results of operations or liquidity.

Shareholders Class Action: On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (“VTBH”) and the Company (f/k/a Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company (the “Merger”). Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company’s Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. On September 14, 2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada Supreme Court granted defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint but provided a limited basis upon which plaintiffs could seek to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company, as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group, LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company’s Board of Directors. All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January 2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018. Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this ruling on

April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court denied defendants’ writ petition without prejudice. The district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set trial for November 2019. On January 18, 2019, the district court certified a class of shareholders of the Company as of January 15, 2014. On October 11, 2019, the parties notified the district court that they had reached a settlement that would resolve the pending action if ultimately approved by the Court. On January 13, 2020, the district court preliminarily approved the settlement between the plaintiffs and all defendants. A final hearing was held on May 18, 2020, wherein the Court approved the settlement and entered final judgment.

On May 22, 2020, PAMTP LLC, which purports to hold the claims of eight shareholders who opted out of the class settlement described above, brought suit against the Company, the Company’s CEO, Juergen Stark, Stripes Group, LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, Kenneth Fox, and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors in Nevada state court. This opt-out action asserts the same direct claims that were asserted by the class of shareholders described above. The defendants filed two motions to dismiss this complaint, which were heard on August 10, 2020. The Court denied those motions by order of August 20, 2020. The case was tried in August 2021 and all remaining defendants, including the Company, prevailed on all counts with final judgment entered in their favor on September 3, 2021. Plaintiff is appealing that judgment.

Employment Litigation: On April 20, 2017, a former employee filed an action in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, State of California. The complaint alleges claims including wrongful termination, retaliation and various other provisions of the California Labor Code. The complaint seeks unspecified economic and non-economic losses, as well as allegedly unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses statutory penalties, interest, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed a cross-complaint against the former employee on May 25, 2017 for certain activities related to his employment with the Company. The matter was tried between September 24 and October 7, 2021. On October 8, 2021 a jury rendered a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company on the employment claims. The Court granted a directed verdict to the Company on its Cross- Complaint against the former employee. Judgment was entered in favor of the Company on October 27, 2021. On December 20, 2021, the former employee filed a notice of appeal of the judgment.

Intellectual Property Dispute: On November 24, 2020, ABP Technology Limited (ABP) issued a claim for trademark infringement in the High Court of England and Wales against Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc. (“VTB”) and Turtle Beach Europe Limited (“TB Europe”) relating to the use by VTB and TB Europe of the sign STEALTH on and in relation to gaming headsets in the UK. On November 16, 2022 the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement in full and final settlement of all claims regarding this matter. Accordingly, the High Court claim has been discontinued.

Consumer Class Action: On June 13, 2022, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit against Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc. (“VTB”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that VTB violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), by sending marketing-related text messages to the plaintiff and other members of the public who have registered their telephone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call Registry. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of all persons in the United States whose telephone numbers were present on the national Do-Not-Call Registry and received text messages from VTB within the last four years. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice, and District Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order dismissing the case on January 25, 2023.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in the foregoing unresolved matters. However, litigation and investigations are inherently uncertain. Accordingly, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. The Company has not recorded any accrual at December 31, 2022 for contingent losses associated with these matters based on its belief that losses, while possible, are not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The unfavorable resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. The Company is engaged in other legal actions, not described above, arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance, believes that the ultimate outcome of these other legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

The Company warrants products against certain manufacturing and other defects. These product warranties are provided for specific periods of time depending on the nature of the product. Warranties are generally fulfilled by replacing defective products with new products. The following table provides the changes in our product warranties, which are included in other current liabilities:


	Year ended December 31,
	2022			2021			2020
	(in thousands)
Warranty, beginning of period	$	856		$	1,039		$	742
Warranty costs accrued		380			674			1,336
Settlements of warranty claims		(618	)		(857	)		(1,039	)
Warranty, end of period	$	618		$	856		$	1,039

The Company adopted ASU 2016-02, Leases, on January 1, 2019. The Company determines whether an arrangement is a lease at inception. The Company leases office spaces that provide for future minimum rental lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases that have remaining lease terms of one year to nine years, and do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants.

The components of the right-of-use assets and lease liabilities were as follows:


	Balance Sheet Classification	December 31, 2022
		(in thousands)
Right-of-use assets	Other assets	$	7,998

Lease liability obligations, current	Other current liabilities	$	1,069
Lease liability obligations, noncurrent	Other liabilities		7,533
Total lease liability obligations		$	8,602
Weighted-average remaining lease term (in years)			6.8
Weighted-average discount rate			4.3	%

During the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company recognized approximately $1.4 million of lease costs in operating expenses and approximately $1.2 million of operating cash flows from operating leases.

Approximate future minimum lease payments for the Company’s right of use assets over the remaining lease periods as of December 31, 2022:


	(in thousands)
2023	$	1,289
2024		1,437
2025		1,451
2026		1,361
2027		1,383
Thereafter		3,181
Total minimum payments		10,102
Less: Imputed interest		(1,500	)
Total	$	8,602