XML 46 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters 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. 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. Subsequently, the case was remanded to the District Court for consideration of the remaining issues raised by TEA. On June 28, 2012, the District Court in Travis County held a hearing on TEA’s Texas Constitutional claims and on July 9, 2012 entered an order finding that the tax was a constitutional Occupations Tax. The Court denied the remainder of TEA’s constitutional claims. TEA appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Third Court of Appeals and on May 9, 2014, the Third Court of Appeals issued a ruling adverse to TEA and in favor of the State. TEA filed a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court on July 17, 2014. The Texas Supreme Court denied TEA’s petition for review on November 21, 2014. On February 5, 2015, TEA filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme 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, based on the court ruling, the Company will continue to accrue and expense the potential tax liability on its financial statements. If the final decision of the courts is ultimately in the Company’s favor, as it believes it will be, then the Company will record a one-time gain of the entire amount previously expensed. Since the inception of the tax, the Company has paid more than $2 million to the State of Texas under protest for all four quarters of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, expensing it 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 all subsequent quarters, as a result of the Third Court’s 2009 decision, the Company has accrued the tax, but not paid the State. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2014, the Company has approximately $16.2 million in accrued liabilities for this tax. Patron tax expense amounted to approximately $762,000 and $738,000 for the quarters ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The Company’s Texas clubs have filed a separate lawsuit against the State in which the Company raises additional challenges to the statute imposing the fee or tax, demanding repayment of the taxes the Company has paid under this statute. The courts have not yet addressed these additional claims. If the Company is successful in the remaining litigation, the amount the Company has paid under protest should be repaid or applied to any future, constitutional admission tax or other Texas state tax liabilities. The Company and subsidiaries RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. (“RCI NY”) and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. (“Peregrine”) have been defendants in a federal court collective and class action, pending since March 30, 2009, in the Southern District of New York relating to wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). The Company, RCI NY and Peregrine deny liability in this matter, are vigorously defending the allegations and have asserted counterclaims and affirmative defenses for offset and unjust enrichment. Discovery has been completed. On September 10, 2013, the court ruled on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on liability on their causes of action for minimum wage under the FLSA and NYLL and held that entertainers at Rick’s NY are employees. The court further held that Peregrine was an employer of the Plaintiffs and that under federal law, Rick’s NY’s statutory duty to pay minimum wages was not satisfied by the performance fees Plaintiffs’ received. The court denied the Plaintiffs’ attempt to hold the Company or RCI NY liable as joint employers with Peregrine and the issue of whether the Company and RCI NY are also employers will be determined at a trial. On November 18, 2013, the court set the class end date as October 31, 2012 and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Claim Five of their complaint, holding that the Club’s fines fees and tip-out requirements violated New York State law. On November 14, 2014, following motion practice by the parties, the court issued an order holding that: (a) under New York law, the performance fees paid by Plaintiffs do not offset Defendants’ minimum wage obligations; (b) holding Peregrine liable on Claim Four of the Complaint; (c) denying Defendants’ motion to strike the reports and testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness; (d) denying Defendants’ motion to decertify the Rule 23 class; (e) granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to damages on Claim One and Two of the Complaint (for minimum wage under the FLSA and the NYLL) in the amount of $10,866,035 and granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to damages on Claim Four of the Complaint but finding that an issue of fact exists as to whether Plaintiff’s were actually required to pay certain “tip outs” and thus denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on that issue. The Court has indicated that the issues remaining in the action will be scheduled for trial in 2015. Ultimately, the Company, RCI NY and Peregrine intend to appeal the aforementioned rulings, including seeking the court’s permission to appeal certain issues immediately rather than after trial. 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 multiple civil lawsuits pending or threatened against the Company and its subsidiaries; and other potential lawsuits for incidents that occurred before October 25, 2013 could still be filed. The Company has retained counsel to defend against and evaluate these claims and lawsuits. The Company has filed the appropriate claims against IIC with the Receiver by the January 16, 2015 deadline; 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, the Company has obtained general liability coverage from another insurer, effective October 25, 2013, which will cover any claims arising from actions after that date. Settlement of lawsuits and other one-time costs include no settlements during the quarters ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 in settlements with claimants which were unpaid by our general liability insurance carrier.

X
- 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/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration