XML 22 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]
11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

Beginning January 1, 2008, the Company’s Texas clubs became subject to a new state law requiring each club to collect and pay a $5 surcharge for every club visitor.  A lawsuit was filed by the Texas Entertainment Association (“TEA”), an organization to which the Company is a member, alleging the fee amounts to be an unconstitutional tax.  On March 28, 2008, a State District Court Judge in Travis County, Texas ruled that the new state law violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore invalid.  The judge’s order enjoined the State from collecting or assessing the tax.  The State appealed the Court’s ruling.  In Texas, when cities or the State give notice of appeal, it supersedes and suspends the judgment, including the injunction.  Therefore, the judgment of the District Court cannot be enforced until the appeals are completed.  Given the suspension of the judgment, the State gave notice of its right to collect the tax pending the outcome of its appeal but took no affirmative action to enforce that right.  On June 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Third District (Austin) affirmed the District Court’s judgment that the Sexually Oriented Business (“S.O.B.”) Fee violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but on August 26, 2011, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the SOB Fee does not violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the fee violates the Texas Constitution.

 

The TEA appealed the Texas Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court (regarding the constitutionality of the fee under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), but the U.S. Supreme Court denied the appeal on January 23, 2012.    The case will now resume in the District Court in Travis County on the remaining issues raised by the TEA that were not previously decided by the trial court. The Company has not made any payments of these taxes since the first quarter of 2009 and plans not to make any such payments while the case is pending in the courts. However, the Company will continue to accrue and expense the potential tax liability on our consolidated financial statements, so any ultimate negative ruling will not have any effect on our income statement and will only affect our balance sheet. If the decision is ultimately found in our favor, as we believe it will be, then we will have a one-time gain of the entire amount previously expensed.

 

The Company paid the tax for the first five quarters and expensed the tax in the consolidated financial statements, except for two locations in Dallas where the taxes have not been paid, but the Company is accruing and expensing the liability.  For the subsequent quarters, as a result of the Third Court’s decision, the Company accrued the fee, but did not pay the State.  As of March 31, 2012, the Company has approximately $8.4 million in accrued liabilities for this tax.  Patron tax expense amounted to $1.5 million for each of the six months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.  The Company has paid more than $2 million to the State of Texas since the inception of the tax. The Company’s Texas clubs have filed a separate lawsuit against the State in which we raise additional challenges to the statute imposing the fee or tax and demand repayment of the taxes. The courts have not yet addressed these additional claims.  If the State’s appeal ultimately fails or we are successful in the remaining litigation, the Company’s current amount paid under protest would be repaid or applied to future admission tax and other Texas state tax liabilities.

 

In September 2011, the Company’s subsidiary, RCI Entertainment Las Vegas, Inc. (“RCI Las Vegas”) and Rick’s Cabaret International were sued by the lessor of its club in Las Vegas for breach of contract and other issues relating to RCI Las Vegas’ lease. RCI Las Vegas has no assets and, therefore, is not able to pay the “deficiency”, if any is ultimately found in a court of law. If the plaintiff should attempt to claim that the “deficiency” is a liability of the parent company, the Company believes it has the legal basis upon which to refute this claim as the parent company is not liable for the debts of its subsidiaries. Therefore, the Company does not believe that this contingency will ultimately result in a liability and, therefore, no accrual has been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

 

In September 2011, the Company and its CEO were sued in District Court in Travis County Texas by a shareholder for damages as a result of the plaintiff’s alleged inability to sell shares on the open market due to restrictive legends which the plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to remove in a timely manner. On March 21, 2012, the Company agreed to a settlement in the case. The terms of the settlement provide for the payment of $2,650,000 to the plaintiff and a full and complete release of the Company and the Company’s CEO. The settlement amount will be paid with approximately $850,000 in insurance proceeds and a cash payment from the Company of approximately $1.8 million. No admission of liability was made by the Company. The parties completed the settlement documents and an Order of Dismissal was entered into on April 19, 2012. The $1.8 million has been expensed in the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

 

The Company’s subsidiary that operated the club in Las Vegas has recently been audited by the Department of Taxation of the State of Nevada for sales and other taxes.  The audit period was from the date of opening in September 2008 through July 31, 2010.  As a result of the audit, the Department of Taxation contends that the Company’s Las Vegas subsidiary owes approximately $2.1 million, including penalties and interest, for Las Vegas Live Entertainment Taxes.  The Company does not believe it is subject to the Live Entertainment Tax and is protesting the audit results.  Accordingly, the Company has not accrued the contingent liability in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.  It is unknown at this time whether the resolution of this uncertainty will have a material effect on the Company’s operations.

 

Two securities class action lawsuits were filed against us in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs claim to represent recipients of text messages. The complaints allege that we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) by sending unsolicited advertisements by text message to the plaintiff and other recipients nationwide during the four-year period preceding the lawsuit without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. On January 20, 2012, an amended complaint was filed in one of the cases to add one of our subsidiaries as a defendant. In October 2011, we filed a declaratory judgment action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston division) against our general liability insurance carrier to provide coverage for these two TCPA cases. On January 24, 2012, the presiding judge issued an order dismissing the case against our carrier. Therefore, there is no insurance coverage for this case. The Company denies any liability in this matter and is vigorously defending the allegations.

 

The Company has been a defendant in a federal court, pending since March 30, 2009, in the southern district of New York relating to claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York’s wage and hour laws. Discovery is ongoing. The Company denies any liability in this matter and is vigorously defending the allegations.