XML 38 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 15. Commitments and Contingencies Unrecorded future minimum purchase commitments as of December 31, 2022 were as follows (in millions):
2023 |  | $ | 288.2 |
2024 |  | 3.6 |
Thereafter |  | — |
Total commitments |  | $ | 291.8 |
The Company’s future minimum purchase commitments are primarily for materials and subcontractor costs to be used in its construction projects. The amounts are fixed and determinable and do not include variable components. Litigation The Company is subject to claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are inherently uncertain, and there can be no guarantee that the outcome of any such matter will be decided favorably to the Company or that the resolution of any such matter will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company does not believe that any of such pending claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company records a liability in its Consolidated Financial Statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews these estimates each accounting period as additional information is known and adjusts the loss provision when appropriate. If a matter is both probable to result in a liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates and discloses the possible loss or range of loss to the extent necessary for its Consolidated Financial Statements not to be misleading. If the loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. Any legal or other expenses associated with the litigation are accrued for as the expenses are incurred. Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances with counsel in each of the matters disclosed, management has provided for what is believed to be a reasonable estimate of loss exposure. While acknowledging the uncertainties of litigation, management believes that the ultimate outcome of litigation will not have a material effect on its financial position and will defend itself vigorously. VAT assessment On February 20, 2017, and on August 15, 2017, the Company's subsidiary, PTGi International Carrier Services Ltd. (“PTGi-ICS Ltd”), received notices from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office in the U.K. ("HMRC") indicating that it was required to pay certain Value-Added Taxes ("VAT") for the 2015 and 2016 tax years. On February 15, 2022, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) Chamber (the "Tax Tribunal") found in favor of PTGi-ICS Ltd. HMRC has acknowledged that it will not appeal the Tax Tribunal’s decision and it must pay reasonable legal fees incurred by PTGi-ICS Ltd. On August 1, 2022 ICS received £1.1 million (~$1.3 million) from HMRC for the VAT refunds previously withheld. ICS is waiting on the repayment of the outstanding interest and costs. The Company is working with HMRC agents to obtain full resolution. Fair Value Investments Litigation On October 1, 2020, Fair Value Investments Incorporated (“FVI”) filed a putative stockholder class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") against INNOVATE Corp. and certain of DBMG’s current and former officers and directors, including current and former INNOVATE officers and directors AJ Stahl, Kenneth S. Courtis, Robert V. Leffler, Jr., Philip A. Falcone, Michael J. Sena, and Paul Voigt (together with INNOVATE, the “INNOVATE Defendants”) styled Fair Value Investments Incorporated v. Roach, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.) (the “FVI Action”). In the FVI Action, FVI alleges that the Company, in its capacity as DBMG’s controlling stockholder, and DBMG’s current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to DBMG and DBMG’s minority stockholders by approving certain transactions that allegedly provide disproportionate benefits to the Company. FVI challenges the following transactions: (i) DBMG’s payments to the Company from 2016–present pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and the Company; (ii) DBMG acting as a guarantor or providing collateral for loans taken on by the Company; (iii) DBMG’s issuance of dividends to its common and preferred stockholders in 2017–2020; (iv) DBMG’s issuance of preferred stock to the Company to finance DBMG’s 2018 acquisition of GrayWolf Industrial; and (v) the Company’s appointment of directors to DBMG’s board of directors by written consent in lieu of holding an annual stockholder meeting. On February 23, 2021, FVI filed an Amended Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, FVI named two additional defendants: the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Wayne Barr, and DBMG’s General Counsel, Scott D. Sherman. The Amended Complaint includes additional fact allegations in support of the largely similar claims raised in the original complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 23, 2021. The Court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on January 21, 2022. Ruling from the bench, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, in part. The Court dismissed all claims against all individual defendants other than Ronald Yagoda, including all claims against Messrs. Barr, Stahl, Courtis, Leffler, Falcone, Sena, and Voigt. As to the two remaining defendants - INNOVATE Corp. and Yagoda - the Court dismissed all claims regarding: (i) DBMG acting as a guarantor or providing collateral for loans by the Company; (ii) DBMG’s issuance of dividends to its common and preferred stockholders in 2017–2020; (iii) the Company’s appointment of directors to DBMG’s board of directors by written consent in lieu of holding an annual stockholder meeting; and (iv) DBMG’s payments to the Company in 2016 and May 2017 pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and the Company. The Company believes the surviving claims in the FVI Amended Complaint relating to (i) DBMG’s payments to the Company after May 2017 pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and the Company and (ii) DBMG’s issuance of preferred stock to the Company to finance DBMG’s 2018 acquisition of GrayWolf Industrial are without merit. Discovery on the two remaining claims is underway. On December 23, 2022, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order which, among other things, scheduled the trial date for March 12-14, 2024. On March 1, 2023, FVI's counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw and Temporarily Stay Proceedings, which motion was granted on March 9, 2023. The Court ordered a 30-day stay of the proceedings to allow FVI to engage new counsel. The Company intends to vigorously defend this litigation. DTV Derivative Litigation On March 15, 2021, twenty-two DTV stockholders and eight holders of DTV stock options filed a stockholder class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled Bocock, et al., v. HC2 Holdings, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2021-0224 (Del. Ch.). Plaintiffs named as defendants INNOVATE Corp. (f/k/a HC2 Holdings, Inc.), HC2 Broadcasting Holdings, Inc., HC2 Broadcasting Inc., and Continental General Insurance Corporation (the “INNOVATE Entities”) and certain current and former officers and directors of the INNOVATE Entities and DTV, including Philip Falcone, Michael Sena, Wayne Barr, Jr., Les Levi, Paul Voigt, Ivan Minkov, and Paul Robinson (the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiffs principally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by participating in a “scheme” in which the INNOVATE Entities (i) acquired majority voting and operating control over DTV; (ii) exploited that control to misappropriate DTV’s assets and business opportunities for the benefit of the INNOVATE Entities; and (iii) purchased DTV stock at a discount to fair value and diminished the value of DTV stock options. Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants (i) “prompted” the INNOVATE Entities to purchase more than 100 low-power television (“LPTV”) broadcast stations originally identified for potential acquisition by DTV, (ii) allowed the INNOVATE Entities to misappropriate DTV technology, known as “DTV Cast,” (iii) caused DTV to transfer unspecified LPTV broadcasting station licenses to INNOVATE affiliates “without paying any value,” and (iv) transferred to the INNOVATE Entities unspecified DTV broadcasting stations that had been “repacked” by the FCC. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on May 19, 2021. On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs amended their complaint. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert the same claims they asserted in their initial complaint, added a claim for waste associated with DTV’s purported transfer of licenses and construction permits for less than fair value, and dropped Paul Robinson as a defendant. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety on August 25, 2021, and the parties completed briefing on the motions to dismiss on November 10, 2021. The Court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on March 29, 2022. On June 28, 2022, the Court requested that the parties submit supplemental briefing on the motions to dismiss by July 20, 2022. The parties completed the supplemental briefing on July 20, 2022. On October 28, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. First, the Court dismissed all claims against Continental General Insurance Corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction. Second, the Court dismissed all claims the stockholder plaintiffs purported to assert directly. Third, the Court dismissed as time-barred all claims challenging conduct that occurred before March 15, 2018, including claims challenging (i) the November 2017 acquisition of Azteca America by INNOVATE; (ii) INNOVATE’s purported usurpation of the so-called “DTV Cast” technology; and (iii) the WFWC-CD Station acquisition. Fourth, the Court dismissed claims associated with the INNOVATE Entities’ purported purchases of unidentified broadcasting stations. Fifth, the Court dismissed all claims challenging the Expense Sharing Agreement, and the Right to Use Agreement between INNOVATE and DTV, and certain Stock-Based Compensation Agreements. Sixth, the Court dismissed the aiding and abetting claim against the INNOVATE Entities. Seventh, the Court dismissed the civil conspiracy claim as to all defendants. Lastly, the Court dismissed the option-holders’ claim for tortious interference with prospective business opportunities. Thus, after the Court issued its October 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion, the only claims to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss are (i) a derivative claim against the INNOVATE Entities (other than Continental General), Levi, and Falcone for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the $0.1 million Frank Digital acquisition; (ii) a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the INNOVATE Entities (other than Continental General), in their capacities as DTV’s controlling stockholders, relating to the sale of six licenses (for less than $0.5 million) in connection with the Gray Media sale; (iii) a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the INNOVATE Entities (other than Continental General) and Levi in connection with the transfer of licenses ultimately sold to TV-49 for $0.1 million; and (iv) a derivative claim for waste against Levi and Falcone in connection with the sale of two stations to Lowcountry, which Lowcountry later sold for $0.2 million and $0.4 million, respectively. The Company believes these remaining claims are without merit, and the Company intends to vigorously defend this litigation. Marin Hospital Replacement Litigation On October 20, 2022, McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. (“McCarthy”) filed suit against Schuff Steel Company (“Schuff”), a subsidiary of DBMG, and Quality Assurance Engineering, Inc. dba Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (“CEL”) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Marin, styled McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. v. Schuff Steel Company; Quality Engineering, Inc. dba Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, et al., Case No. CIV2203963 (the “Action”). In the Action, McCarthy alleges damages and delays caused by alleged failures in fabrication, erection, welding, and quality control by Schuff and improper quality assurance responsibilities by CEL on the Marin General Hospital Replacement Building (the “Project”). McCarthy asserts claims against Schuff for breach of contract, express indemnity, breach of express warranties, negligence, equitable implied indemnity, breach of implied warranties, and declaratory relief. On February 13, 2023. Schuff filed its response denying liability to McCarthy and asserting a Cross-Complaint against McCarthy, and other companies involved in the design, construction, and quality assurance, who potentially are liable for damages and delays alleged by McCarthy on the Project. In the Cross-Complaint, Schuff asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of statute, equitable indemnity apportionment, and contribution and express indemnity (the “Cross-Complaint”). Schuff intends to vigorously defend this Action and aggressively pursue the Cross-Complaint and cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential loss at this time. Other Commitments and Contingencies Letters of Credit and Performance Bonds As of December 31, 2022, DBMG had outstanding letters of credit of $2.6 million under credit and security agreements and performance bonds of $956.6 million. As of December 31, 2021, DBM had outstanding letters of credit of $13.5 million under credit and security agreements and performance bonds of $900.8 million. DBMG’s contract arrangements with customers sometimes require DBMG to provide performance bonds to partially secure its obligations under its contracts. Bonding requirements typically arise in connection with private contracts and sometimes with respect to certain public work projects. DBMG’s performance bonds are obtained through surety companies and typically cover the entire project price. HMN Equity Interest On October 30, 2019, the Company announced the sale of its New Saxon 2019 Limited (“New Saxon”) stake in HMN, its 49% joint venture with Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., to Hengtong Optic-Electric Co Ltd ("Hengtong"). Under the terms of the agreement, the sale of New Saxon’s 49% interest in HMN will be affected in two tranches. The first tranche, the sale of the portion of New Saxon’s 30% interest of HMN, closed on May 12, 2020 (the "First HMN Close"). The remaining 19% interest of HMN is retained by New Saxon and subject to a put option agreement by New Saxon, exercisable starting on the second year anniversary of the closing date of the First HMN Close at a price equal to the greater of the share price paid for the 30% interest or fair market value as of the exercisable date. On June 24, 2022, New Saxon entered into a supplemental agreement for the outright sale of its remaining 19% interest in HMN, which also changed the buyers from a Hong Kong entity to three Chinese entities. The new agreement preserved the rights under the original put option agreement, giving the Company the ability to exercise the put option if the transaction did not close by October 31, 2022. The significant terms and structure of the transaction did not otherwise change, and the transaction still required cash settlement. Subsequent to December 31, 2022, the transaction received final regulatory approvals in China, and the transaction closed on March 6, 2023. Refer to Note 24. Subsequent Events for additional information. Concentrations of Credit Risk and of Significant Suppliers Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash, cash equivalents, and accounts receivable. The Company maintains all cash and cash equivalents at accredited financial institutions, in amounts that exceed federally insured limits. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts. The Company holds $3.2 million and $4.7 million cash in foreign accounts as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The Company attempts to minimize the risks related to cash and cash equivalents by investing in a range of financial instruments as defined by the Company. Concentrations of credit risk with respect to accounts receivable are limited by the large number of customers comprising the Company's customer base and their geographic and business dispersion. The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of the customers' financial condition and generally does not require collateral to support customer receivables. For the years ended December 31, 2022, one customer exceeded 10% of the Company's revenue and accounted for approximately 23.8% and one customer accounted for more than 10% of accounts receivable for approximately 11.5%. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, one customer exceeded 10% of the Company's revenue and accounted for approximately 13.9% and no customers accounted for more than 10% of accounts receivable. For the year ended December 31, 2022, one supplier accounted for more than 10% of the Company's accounts payable for approximately 17.5%. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, one supplier accounted for more than 10% of the Company's accounts payable for approximately 15.1%.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 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 https://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 https://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