XML 33 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 14. Commitments and Contingencies Required Member Distributions Prior to the Business Combination and pursuant to the then applicable First Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “First Purple LLC Agreement”), Purple LLC was required to distribute to its members an amount equal to 45 percent of Purple LLC’s net taxable income following the end of each fiscal year. The First Purple LLC Agreement was amended and replaced by the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Second Purple LLC Agreement”) on February 2, 2018 as part of the Business Combination. The Second Purple LLC Agreement was amended and replaced by the Third Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Third Purple LLC Agreement”) on September 3, 2020. The Second Purple LLC Agreement and the Third Purple LLC Agreement do not include any mandatory distributions, other than tax distributions. No distributions were made under the Second Purple LLC Agreement in 2019. During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company paid $5.5. million in tax distributions under the Second Purple LLC Agreement. At December 31, 2020, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet had $0.7 million of accrued tax distributions included in other current liabilities. Service Agreement In October 2017, the Company entered into an electric service agreement with the local power company. The agreement provided for the construction and installation of certain utility improvements to provide increased power capacity to the manufacturing and warehouse facility in Grantsville, Utah. The Company prepaid $0.5 million related to the improvements and agreed to a minimum contract billing amount over a 15-year period based on regulated rate schedules and changes in actual demand during the billing period. The agreement includes an early termination clause that requires the Company to pay a pro-rata termination charge if the Company terminates within the first 10-years of the service start date. The original early termination charge was $1.3 million and is reduced annually on a straight-line basis over the 10-year period. During 2018, the utility improvements construction was completed and were made available to the Company. As of December 31, 2020, the early termination penalty was $0.9 million and the Company expects to fulfill its commitments under the agreement in the normal course of business, and as such, no liability has been recorded. Purchase Agreement In February 2018, the Company entered into a purchase contract with a supplier of mineral oil that includes a minimum purchase commitment over a two-year period. In April 2019, the contract was amended to provide for a minimum purchase commitment over a four-year period ending in April 2023. In exchange, the Company agreed to a further discount per gallon. During the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, the Company made purchases under the contract totaling $11.8 million and $8.9 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, approximately $2.8 million remains on the purchase contract. The Company expects to fulfill its commitments under the agreement in the normal course of business, and as such, no liability has been recorded. Indemnification Obligations From time to time, the Company enters into contracts that contingently require it to indemnify parties against claims. These contracts primarily relate to provisions in the Company’s services agreements with related parties that may require the Company to indemnify the related parties against services rendered; and certain agreements with the Company’s officers and directors under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities. In connection with the Business Combination, to secure the payment of a certain portion of specified post-closing indemnification rights of the Company under the Merger Agreement, 0.5 million shares of Class B Stock and 0.5 million Class B Units otherwise issuable to InnoHold as equity consideration were deposited in an escrow account for up to three years from the date of the Business Combination pursuant to a contingency escrow agreement. In September 2020, an amendment to the escrow agreement was signed whereby the 0.5 million shares of Class B Stock and 0.5 million Class B Units held in escrow were exchanged for $5.0 million to be held in escrow. As of December 31, 2020, the Company has estimated amounts totaling $4.1 million that would qualify for indemnification. At that time, no claims had been submitted by the Company and $5.0 million remained deposited in the escrow account. Subscription Agreement and Preemptive Rights In February 2018, in connection with the Business Combination, the Company entered into a subscription agreement with CCP and Blackwell, pursuant to which CCP and Blackwell agreed to purchase from the Company an aggregate of 4.0 million shares of Class A Stock at a purchase price of $10.00 per share (the “Coliseum Private Placement”). In connection with the Coliseum Private Placement, the Sponsor assigned (i) an aggregate of 1.3 million additional shares of Class A Stock to CCP and Blackwell and (ii) an aggregate of 3.3 million warrants to purchase 1.6 million shares of Class A Stock to CCP, Blackwell, and CDF. The subscription agreement provides CCP and Blackwell with preemptive rights with respect to future sales of the Company’s securities. It also provides them with a right of first refusal with respect to certain debt and preferred equity financings by the Company. The Company also entered into a registration rights agreement with CCP, Blackwell, and CDF, providing for the registration of the shares of Class A Stock issued and assigned to CCP and Blackwell in the Coliseum Private Placement, as well as the shares of Class A Stock underlying the warrants received by CCP, Blackwell and CDF. The Company has filed a registration statement with respect to such securities. Rights of Securities Holders The holders of certain Warrants exercisable into Class A Stock, including CCP, Blackwell and CDF, were entitled to registration rights pursuant to certain registration rights agreements of the Company as of the Business Combination date. In March 2018, the Company filed a registration statement registering the Warrants (and any shares of Class A Stock issuable upon the exercise of the Warrants), and certain unregistered shares of Class A Stock. The registration statement was declared effective on April 3, 2018. Under the Registration Rights Agreement dated February 2, 2018 between the Company and CCP, Blackwell, and CDF (the “Coliseum Investors”), the Coliseum Investors have the right to make written demands for up to three registrations of certain Warrants and shares of Class A Stock held by them, including in underwritten offerings. In an underwritten offering of such Warrants and shares of Class A Stock by the Coliseum Investors, the Company will pay underwriting discounts and commissions and certain expenses incurred by the Coliseum Investors. The holders of the Incremental Loan Warrants exercisable into Class A Stock were entitled to registration rights pursuant to the registration rights agreement of the Company in connection with the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement. In March 2019, the Company filed a registration statement registering the Warrants (and any shares of Class A Stock issuable upon the exercise of the Warrants). The registration statement was declared effective on May 17, 2019, pursuant to which, the Company issued 2.6 million shares of Class A common stock in exchange for the Incremental Loan Warrants on November 9, 2020. On February 2, 2018, in connection with the closing of the Business Combination, the Company entered into a Registration Rights Agreement with InnoHold and the Parent Representative (the “InnoHold Registration Rights Agreement”). Under the InnoHold Registration Rights Agreement, InnoHold holds registration rights that obligate the Company to register for resale under the Securities Act, all, or any portion, of the Equity Consideration (including Class A Stock issued in exchange for the equity consideration received in the Business Combination) (the “Registrable Securities”). InnoHold is entitled to make a written demand for registration under the Securities Act of all or part of its Registrable Securities (up to a maximum of three demands in total). Pursuant to the InnoHold Registration Rights Agreement, the Company filed a registration statement on Form S-3 that was declared effective on November 8, 2019, pursuant to which InnoHold, Tony Pearce and Terry Pearce sold 11.5 million shares of Class A Stock. The Company filed a second registration statement on Form S-3 that was declared effective on May 14, 2020, pursuant to which InnoHold sold 12.4 million shares of Class A Stock. The Company filed a third and final registration statement on Form S-3 that was declared effective on September 9, 2020, pursuant to which InnoHold sold 16.8 million shares of Class A Stock. Purple LLC Class B Unit Exchange Right On February 2, 2018, in connection with the closing of the Business Combination, the Company entered into an exchange agreement with Purple LLC, InnoHold and Class B Unit holders who become a party thereto (the “Exchange Agreement”), which provides for the exchange of Purple LLC Class B Units (the “Class B Units”) and shares of Class B Stock (together with an equal number of Class B Units, the “Paired Securities”) for, at the Company’s option, either (A) shares of Class A Stock at an initial exchange ratio equal to one Paired Security for one share of Class A Stock or (B) a cash payment equal to the product of the average of the volume-weighted closing price of one share of Class A Stock for the ten trading days immediately prior to the date InnoHold or other Class B Unit holders deliver a notice of exchange multiplied by the number of Paired Securities being exchanged. In December 2018, InnoHold distributed Paired Securities to Terry Pearce and Tony Pearce who also agreed to become parties to the Exchange Agreement. In June 2019, InnoHold distributed Paired Securities to certain current and former employees who also agreed to become parties to the exchange agreement. Holders of Class B Units may elect to exchange all or any portion of their Paired Securities as described above by delivering a notice to Purple LLC. In certain cases, adjustments to the exchange ratio will occur in case of a split, reclassification, recapitalization, subdivision or similar transaction of or relating to the Class B Units or the shares of Class A Stock and Class B Stock or a transaction in which the Class A Stock is exchanged or converted into other securities or property. The exchange ratio will also adjust in certain circumstances when the Company acquires Class B Units other than through an exchange for its shares of Class A Stock. The right of a holder of Paired Securities to exchange may be limited by the Company if it reasonably determines in good faith that such restrictions are required by applicable law (including securities laws), such exchange would not be permitted under other agreements of such holder with the Company or its subsidiaries, including the Operating Agreement, or if such exchange would cause Purple LLC to be treated as a “publicly traded partnership” under applicable tax laws. The Company and each holder of Paired Securities shall bear its own expense regarding the exchange except that the Company shall be responsible for transfer taxes, stamp taxes and similar duties. During the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, 30.9 million and 12.7 million, respectively, of Paired Securities were exchanged for shares of Class A Stock. Maintenance of One-to-One Ratios. The Third Purple LLC Agreement includes provisions intended to ensure that the Company at all times maintains a one-to-one ratio between (a) (i) the number of outstanding shares of Class A Stock and (ii) the number of Class A Units owned by the Company (subject to certain exceptions for certain rights to purchase equity securities of the Company under a “poison pill” or similar stockholder rights plan, if any, certain convertible or exchangeable securities issued under the Company’s equity compensation plan and certain equity securities issued pursuant to the Company’s equity compensation plan (other than a stock option plan) that are restricted or have not vested thereunder) and (b) (i) the number of other outstanding equity securities of the Company (including the warrants exercisable for shares of Class A Stock) and (ii) the number of corresponding outstanding equity securities of Purple LLC. These provisions are intended to result in non-controlling interest holders having a voting interest in the Company that is identical to their economic interest in Purple LLC. Non-Income Related Taxes The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No.17-494, reversed a longstanding precedent that remote sellers are not required to collect state and local sales taxes. The Company cannot predict the effect of these and other attempts to impose sales, income or other taxes on e-commerce. The Company currently collects and reports on sales tax in all states in which it does business. However, the application of existing, new or revised taxes on the Company’s business, in particular, sales taxes, VAT and similar taxes would likely increase the cost of doing business online and decrease the attractiveness of selling products over the internet. The application of these taxes on the Company’s business could also create significant increases in internal costs necessary to capture data and collect and remit taxes. There have been, and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs associated with complying with the various indirect tax requirements in the numerous markets in which the Company conducts or will conduct business. Legal Proceedings On September 9, 2019, Purple LLC filed a Statement of Claim against PerfectSense Home Inc. and PerfectSense Trading Co. Ltd. (collectively, “PerfectSense”) in the Federal Court of Canada. PerfectSense is a manufacturer and supplier of mattresses and related products. PerfectSense owns the domain name www.purplesleep.ca, which used to, but no longer, redirects to its website at www.perfectsense.ca. In addition to this, Purple LLC has alleged that PerfectSense has: designed their mattresses with the same look as the Purple mattresses (white mattress top, purple stripe, and grey bottom); used many of the marketing elements on Purple’s website (including a similar “exploded view” image of their mattress); and adopted the color purple as their dominant marketing color. Purple LLC is suing for a declaration that PerfectSense has infringed Purple LLC’s copyright and trademark rights and committed the tort of passing off. Purple LLC is asking for injunctive relief, damages, an accounting of profits, interest, costs, and delivery up or destruction of the infringing products (including delivery up of the www.purplesleep.ca domain). After filing the statement of claim, Purple LLC posted $15,000 CAD as security for PerfectSense’s costs. PerfectSense brought a motion to strike that was resolved on consent. Pleadings are now closed, and the action is proceeding under case management. Counsel for the defendant was removed from the record at their own request by Court Order. The Court further ordered the defendant to either appoint counsel or file a motion to permit an officer or director to represent the defendant in legal proceedings. On November 6, 2020, the defendant informally requested that the Court permit Mr. Henderson, the CEO and shareholder of the defendant, to represent the defendant in the action until such time as a lawyer could be appointed. Purple opposed this informal request, and it was denied by the Court. After granting PerfectSense a final extension of time to either appoint counsel or file a motion to permit Mr. Henderson to represent the defendant, PerfectSense appointed new counsel. The action will now proceed with the parties scheduled to exchange affidavits of documents by March 31, 2021. On September 20, 2020, the Company filed a complaint at the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking to recover approximately $7.0 million of Section 301 duties paid at the time of importation on certain Chinese-origin goods. More than 4,000 other complaints have been filed by other companies seeking similar refunds. The United States has not yet filed an answer to our complaint. If successful, this litigation could result in a refund of some or all of the Section 301 duties. On October 13, 2020, Purple Innovation, LLC (“Purple”) filed a lawsuit against Responsive Surface Technology, LLC and its parent company, PatienTech, LLC (collectively referred to as “ReST”) in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The lawsuit arises from ReST’s multiple breaches of its obligations to Purple, including infringing upon Purple’s trademarks, patents, and trade dress, among other claims. Purple seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment based on certain conduct by ReST (“Case I”). On October 21, 2020, shortly after the complaint was filed in Case I, ReST filed a retaliatory lawsuit against Purple, Gary DiCamillo, Adam Gray, Joseph Megibow, Terry Pearce, and Tony Pearce, also in the United States District Court for the District of Utah (“Case II”). Subsequently, the two cases were consolidated into one. Case II (now combined with Case I) involves many of the same facts and transactions as Case I. On January 19, 2021, ReST filed a motion to compel arbitration of the claims in Case I. On February 26, 2021, Purple opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that ReST has waived any rights they may have had to arbitration and that all of the claims in both cases should stay in the courts. On March 5, 2021, Purple, Gray, Megibow, Terry Pearce, and Tony Pearce, filed a motion to dismiss the claims set forth in Case II. Purple seeks over $4 million in damages from ReST, whereas ReST claims that Purple is liable to it for tens of millions of dollars. The outcome of this litigation cannot be predicted at this early stage. However, Purple intends to vigorously pursue its claims and defend against the claims made by ReST. On November 19, 2020, Purple Innovation, LLC sued Advanced Comfort Technologies, Inc., dba Intellibed (“Intellibed”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for patent infringement, trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and a number of state law based claims. The principal allegations are that Intellibed has manufactured and sold unauthorized, infringing products under the Sleepy’s brand name. Purple also requested declaratory relief related to certain assignment terms of a license agreement in which Purple is the licensor and Intellibed is the licensee. On December 14, 2020, Intellibed filed a motion to dismiss Counts I through XI of Purple’s Complaint on the ground that these Counts fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On December 15, 2020, Intellibed filed an Answer to Purple’s complaint and also asserted against Purple a total of eight counterclaims, including a number of declaratory judgment claims, breach of contract, and tortious interference claims. Intellibed’s main allegations are that its use of Purple’s patents, trademark, and trade secrets in connection with the Sleepy’s products is authorized under the license agreement. On January 19, 2021, Purple filed a motion to dismiss Intellibed’s fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth counterclaims on the ground that these counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On January 19, 2021, Purple also filed an Answer to Intellibed’s counterclaims, which were not subject to Purple’s motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2021, Purple filed a First Amended Complaint in response to Intellibed’s initial motion to dismiss. On February 10, 2021, Intellibed filed a motion to dismiss Counts I through XI of Purple’s First Amended Complaint. Intellibed’s motion to dismiss and Purple’s motion to dismiss are still pending before the Court. The case is in the early stages. No substantial discovery has taken place. The Court has not yet entered a Scheduling Order governing the case. No trial date has been set. The Company is from time to time involved in various other claims, legal proceedings and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that adverse decisions in any such pending or threatened proceedings, or any amount that the Company might be required to pay by reason thereof, would have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or future results of the Company.

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 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: 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=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration