XML 27 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
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 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 recorded an $8.2 million pre-tax gain for the third quarter ended 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 debt in the consolidated balance sheets, amounted to $1.2 million and $2.2 million as of June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2020, 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. On March 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, ruled that the Texas Patron Tax is unconstitutional as it has been applied and enforced by the Comptroller. The State of Texas has filed an appeal. We will continue to vigorously defend the matter through the appeals process. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC. NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) 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 have been filed with the Receiver before the close of business on January 16, 2015 and that all pending lawsuits involving IIC as the insurer were 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. 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 June 30, 2021, we have 2 unresolved claims out of the original 71 claims. Shareholder Class and Derivative Actions In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in the Company’s SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various alleged transactions by the Company and management. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall (who is no longer an officer of the Company)); and Grossman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall). The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to consolidate the purported class actions. On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating the Hoffman, Grossman, and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The consolidated case is styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841. On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition to naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall, the amended complaint also adds director Nourdean Anakar and former director Steven Jenkins as defendants. On April 24, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 31, 2021, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On April 14, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses, denying liability as to all claims. On June 14, 2021, a scheduling order was entered in the case, setting January 9, 2023 as the trial date. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. This action is in its preliminary phase, and a potential loss cannot yet be estimated. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC. NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) On August 16, 2019, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against officers and directors Eric S. Langan, Phillip Marshall, Nourdean Anakar, Yura Barabash, Luke Lirot, Travis Reese, former director Steven Jenkins, and RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., as nominal defendant. The action, styled Cecere v. Langan, et al., 4:19-cv-03080, alleged that the individual officers and directors made or caused the Company to make a series of materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations, prospects, and legal compliance and engaged in or caused the Company to engage in, inter alia, related party transactions, questionable uses of corporate assets, and failure to maintain internal controls. The action asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint sought injunctive relief, damages, restitution, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On June 1, 2021, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on the plaintiff’s failure to make a pre-suit demand prior to filing of the derivative action, as is required under Texas law. In response, the plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims. On June 21, 2021, the court granted that motion and entered an order dismissing this lawsuit in its entirety, without prejudice. Other On March 26, 2016, an image infringement lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Company and several of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs allege that their images were misappropriated, intentionally altered and published without their consent by clubs affiliated with the Company. The causes of action asserted in Plaintiffs’ Complaint include alleged violations of the Federal Lanham Act, the New York Civil Rights Act, and other statutory and common law theories. The Company contends that there is insurance coverage under an applicable insurance policy. The insurer has raised several issues regarding coverage under the policy. At this time, this disagreement remains unresolved. The Company has denied all allegations, continues to vigorously defend against the lawsuit and continues to believe the matter is covered by insurance. 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. The case was tried to a jury in late September 2018 and an adverse judgment was entered in January 2019 in the amount totaling $1.0 million, which includes damages, attorney fees and interest. The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas. The appeal process required that a check be deposited in the registry of the court in the amount of $690,000, which was deposited in April 2019 and is included in other current assets in both consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2020. On June 3, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the lower court’s judgment in the case. A motion for rehearing en-banc will be requested to ask the full court to reconsider the June 3rd decision. Management believes that the case has no merit and will continue to vigorously defend itself throughout the appeal. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC. NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) 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. As set forth in the risk factors as disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, the adult entertainment industry standard is to classify adult entertainers as independent contractors, not employees. While we take steps to ensure that our adult entertainers are deemed independent contractors, from time to time, we are named in lawsuits related to the alleged misclassification of entertainers. Claims are brought under both federal and where applicable, state law. Based on the industry standard, the manner in which the independent contractor entertainers are treated at the clubs, and the entertainer license agreements governing the entertainer’s work at the clubs, the Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit. Lawsuits are handled by attorneys with an expertise in the relevant law and are defended vigorously. Due to several COVID-19 regulations and restrictions imposed on some of our businesses by local municipalities and/or States, certain of our subsidiaries are plaintiffs to lawsuits that have been filed on behalf of the affected entities to have the restrictions eased or removed entirely. The lawsuits may increase or decrease based on the spread of the disease and new or additional restrictions placed on our businesses. General In the regular course of business affairs and operations, we are subject to possible loss contingencies arising from third-party litigation and federal, state, and local environmental, labor, health and safety laws and regulations. We assess the probability that we could incur liability in connection with certain of these lawsuits. Our assessments are made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, as codified in ASC 450-20, and is not an admission of any liability on the part of the Company or any of its subsidiaries. In certain cases that are in the early stages and in light of the uncertainties surrounding them, we do not currently possess sufficient information to determine a range of reasonably possible liability. In matters where there is insurance coverage, in the event we incur any liability, we believe it is unlikely we would incur losses in connection with these claims in excess of our insurance coverage. Settlements of lawsuits for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2021 amount to approximately $127,000 and $280,000, respectively, while for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2020 amounted to approximately $50,000 and $74,000, respectively. As of June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2020, the Company has accrued $103,000 and $100,000 in accrued liabilities, respectively, related to settlement of lawsuits. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC. NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration