XML 22 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Note 5 - Related-Party Transactions | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Notes to Financial Statements |
Related Party Transactions Disclosure [Text Block] |
5. | Related-Party Transactions
SGRP's policy respecting approval of transactions with related persons, promoters and control persons is contained in the SPAR Group Code of Ethical Conduct for its Directors, Executives, Officers, Employees, Consultants and other Representatives Amended and Restated (as of) March 15, 2018 ( the "Ethics Code"). The Ethics Code is intended to promote and reward honest, ethical, respectful and professional conduct by each director, executive, officer, employee, consultant and other representative of any of SGRP and its subsidiaries (together with SGRP, the "Company") and each other Covered Person (as defined in the Ethics Code) in his or her position with the Company anywhere in the world, including (among other things) serving each customer, dealing with each vendor and treating each other with integrity and respect, and behaving honestly, ethically and professionally with each customer, each vendor, each other and the Company. Article II of the Ethics Code specifically prohibits various forms of self-dealing (including dealing with relatives) and collusion and Article V of the Ethics Code generally prohibits each "Covered Person" (including SGRP's officers and directors) from using or disclosing the Confidential Information of the Company or any of its customers or vendors, seeking or accepting anything of value from any competitor, customer, vendor, or other person relating to doing business with the Company, or engaging in any business activity that conflicts with his or her duties to the Company, and directs each "Covered Person" to avoid any activity or interest that is inconsistent with the best interests of the SPAR Group, in each case except for any "Approved Activity" (as such terms are defined in the Ethics Code). Examples of violations include (among other things) having any ownership interest in, acting as a director or officer of or otherwise personally benefiting from business with any competitor, customer or vendor of the Company other than pursuant to any Approved Activity. Approved Activities include (among other things) any contract with an affiliated person (each an "Approved Affiliate Contract") or anything else disclosed to and approved by SGRP's Board of Directors (the "Board"), its Governance Committee or its Audit Committee, as the case may be, as well as the ownership, board, executive and other positions held in and services and other contributions to affiliates of SGRP and its subsidiaries by certain directors, officers or employees of SGRP, any of its subsidiaries or any of their respective family members. The Company's senior management is generally responsible for monitoring compliance with the Ethics Code and establishing and maintaining compliance systems, including those related to the oversight and approval of conflicting relationships and transactions, subject to the review and oversight of SGRP's Governance Committee as provided in clause IV.11 of the Governance Committee's Charter, and SGRP's Audit Committee as provided in clause I.2 (l) of the Audit Committee's Charter. The Governance Committee and Audit Committee each consist solely of independent outside directors (see Domestic Related Party Services, International Related Party Services, Related Party Transaction Summary, Related Party Transaction Summary, Affinity Insurance, and Other Related Party Transactions and Arrangements , below). SGRP's Audit Committee has the specific duty and responsibility to review and approve the overall fairness and terms of all material related-party transactions. The Audit Committee receives affiliate contracts and amendments thereto for its review and approval (to the extent approval is given), and these contracts are periodically (often annually) again reviewed, in accordance with the Audit Committee Charter, the Ethics Code, the rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ("Nasdaq"), and other applicable law to ensure that the overall economic and other terms will be (or continue to be) no less favorable to the Company than would be the case in an arms-length contract with an unrelated provider of similar services (i.e., its overall fairness to the Company, including pricing, payments to related parties, and the ability to provide services at comparable performance levels). The Audit Committee periodically reviews all related party relationships and transactions described below. The Special Committee also has been involved in the review of the Proposed Amendments to SGRP's By-Laws and the By-Laws Action and 225 Action (see Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Settled Delaware Litigations , below). Domestic Related Party Services: SPAR Business Services, Inc. ("SBS"), SPAR Administrative Services, Inc. ("SAS"), and SPAR InfoTech, Inc. ("Infotech"), have provided services from time to time to the Company and are related parties and affiliates of SGRP, but are not under the control or part of the consolidated Company. SBS is an affiliate because it is owned by Robert G. Brown and prior to December 2018 was owned by William H. Bartels. SAS is an affiliate because it is owned by William H. Bartels and certain relatives of Robert G. Brown or entities controlled by them (each of whom are considered affiliates of the Company for related party purposes). Infotech is an affiliate because it is owned by Robert G. Brown. Mr. Brown and Mr. Bartels are the Majority Stockholders (see below) and founders of SGRP, Mr. Brown was Chairman and an officer and director of SGRP through May 3, 2018 ( when he retired), and Mr. Bartels was and continues to be Vice Chairman and a director and officer of SGRP. Mr. Brown and Mr. Bartels also have been and are stockholders, directors and executive officers of various other affiliates of SGRP. See Note 8, RELATED PARTIES AND RELATED PARTY LITIGATION, below. The Company executes its domestic field services through the services of field merchandising, auditing, assembly and other field personnel (each a "Field Specialist"), substantially all of whom are provided to the Company and engaged by independent third parties and located, scheduled, deployed and administered domestically through the services of local, regional, district and other personnel (each a "Field Administrator"), and substantially all of the Field Administrators are in turn are employed by other independent third parties. SBS provided substantially all of the Field Specialist services in the U.S.A. to the Company from January 1 through July 27, 2018, and an independent vendor and licensee provided them for the balance of 2018. The Company paid $6.8 million during the three months ended March 31, 2018, to SBS for its provision as needed of the services of approximately 3,800 of SBS's available Field Specialists in the U.S.A. (which amounted to approximately 52% of the Company's total domestic Field Specialist service expense for the three months ended March 31, 2018). Since the termination of the Amended and Restated Field Service Agreement with SBS December 1, 2014 ( as amended, the "Prior SBS Agreement"), the Company and SBS agreed to an arrangement where the Company reimbursed SBS for the Field Specialist service costs and certain other approved reimbursable expenses incurred by SBS in performing services for the Company and paid SBS a revised fixed percentage of such reimbursable expenses (the "Cost Plus Fee") equal to 2.96% of those reimbursable expenses, subject to certain offsetting credits. The Company had offered a new agreement to SBS confirming that reimbursable expenses were subject to review and approval by the Company, but SBS rejected that proposal. Due to (among other things) the Clothier Determination and the ongoing proceedings against SBS (which could have had a material adverse effect on SBS's ability to provide future services needed by the Company), SBS' continued higher charges and expense reimbursement disputes, and the Company's identification of an experienced independent third party company (the "Independent Field Vendor") who would provide comparable services on substantially better terms, the Company terminated the services of SBS effective July 27, 2018, and the Company has engaged that Independent Field Vendor to replace those field services previously provided by SBS (other than in California). The Company similarly terminated SAS and has engaged another independent third party company on substantially better terms to replace those administrative services formerly provided by SAS, effective August 1, 2018. Even though the Company believes it had paid SBS for all services provided through July 27, 2018, the Company received notice that there may not have been sufficient funds in SBS' bank accounts to honor all payments SBS had made by check to their Field Specialists. Based on this notice, the Company withheld approximately $435,000 of final mark-up compensation due SBS and had been making payments, on a daily basis, into the SBS bank account designated for Field Specialist payments to ensure all SBS Field Specialists that had provided services to the Company are properly compensated for those services. The $435,000 has been completely exhausted and the Company was required to fund an additional $13,000 to cover these duplicate Field Specialist payments. The Company believes that there may be checks for Field Service payments for as much as an additional $120,000 that the Company believes may not be honored by SBS. The Company has made plans to ensure that all of the current Field Specialists are properly paid and is exploring its legal options for recovery of all duplicate payments it is making on SBS's behalf. No SBS compensation to any officer, director or other related party had been reimbursed or approved to date by the Company, and no such compensation reimbursements were approved under SBS's Prior Agreement. This was not a restriction on SBS since SBS is not controlled by the Company and could have paid any compensation to any person that SBS desires out of its own funds. Since SBS is a "Subchapter S" corporation, all income from SBS is allocated to its stockholders (see above). The appropriateness of SBS's treatment of its Field Specialists as independent contractors had been periodically subject to legal challenge (both currently and historically) by various states and others, SBS's expenses of defending those challenges and other proceedings had historically been reimbursed by the Company under SBS's Prior Agreement, and SBS's expenses of defending those challenges and other proceedings were reimbursed by the Company for the three month period ended March 31, 2018, in the amount of $60,000, after determination (on a case by case basis) that those defense expenses were costs of providing services to the Company. On May 15, 2017, the Company advised SBS that, since there was no currently effective comprehensive written services agreement with SBS, the Company would continue to review and decide each request by SBS for reimbursement of its legal defense expenses (including appeals) on a case-by-case basis in its discretion, including the relative costs and benefits to the Company. SBS has disputed the right of the Company and SGRP's Audit Committee to review and decide the appropriateness of the reimbursement of any of those related party defense and other expense reimbursements. In addition, on June 13, 2018, the Company gave SBS notice that it would no longer reimburse any such expenses as a result of SGRP's separate settlement of the Clothier Case. As provided in SBS's Prior Agreement, the Company is not obligated or liable, and the Company has not otherwise agreed and does not currently intend, to reimburse SBS for any judgment or similar amount (including any damages, settlement, or related tax, penalty, or interest) in any legal challenge or other proceeding against or involving SBS, and the Company does not believe it has ever done so (other than in insignificant nuisance amounts). Furthermore, even though SBS was solely responsible for its operations, methods and legal compliance, in connection with any proceedings against SBS, SBS may claim that the Company is somehow liable for any judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS and pursue that claim with litigation. The Company does not believe there is any basis for such claims and would defend them vigorously. There can be no assurance that plaintiffs or someone else will not claim that the Company is liable (under applicable law, through reimbursement or indemnification, or otherwise) for any such judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS, or that the Company will be able to defend any claim successfully. Any imposition of liability on the Company for any such amount could have a material adverse effect on the Company or its performance or condition (including its assets, business, clients, capital, cash flow, credit, expenses, financial condition, income, legal costs, liabilities, liquidity, locations, marketing, operations, prospects, sales, strategies, taxation or other achievement, results or condition), whether actual or as planned, intended, anticipated, estimated or otherwise expected. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters , below. The Company has reached a non-exclusive agreement on substantially better terms than SBS with an experienced independent third -party vendor to provide substantially all of the domestic Field Specialist services used by the Company. The Company has also reached a separate non-exclusive agreement on substantially better terms than with SAS with another independent third -party vendor to provide substantially all of the domestic Field Administrator services used by the Company. The Company transitioned to such new vendors during July 2018, and such transition was virtually unnoticeable to the Company's clients . SAS provided substantially all of the Field Administrators in the U.S.A. to the Company from January 1 through March 31, 2018. The Company paid $1.1 million to SAS for its provision of its 57 full-time regional and district administrators (which amounted to approximately 91% of the Company's total domestic field administrative service cost for the three month period ended March 31, 2018. In addition to these field service and administration expenses, SAS also incurred other administrative expenses related to benefit and employment tax expenses of SAS and payroll processing, and other administrative expenses and SBS incurred expenses for processing vendor payments, legal defense and other administrative expenses (but those expenses were only reimbursed by SGRP to the extent approved by the Company as described below). No SAS compensation to any officer, director or other related party (other than to Mr. Peter W. Brown, a related party as noted below, pursuant to previously approved budgets) had been reimbursed by the Company. This was not a restriction on SAS since SAS is not controlled by the Company and could have paid any compensation to any person that SAS desires out of its own funds. Since SAS is a "Subchapter S" corporation, all income from SAS is allocated to its stockholders (see above). On May 7, 2018, the Company gave a termination notice to SAS specifying July 31, 2018, as the end of the Service Term under (and as defined in) SAS Agreement signed in 2016. The Company has reached a non-exclusive agreement with an independent third party vendor to provide substantially all of the domestic Field Administrators used by the Company. The Company transitioned to such new vendor during July 2018, and it was virtually unnoticeable to the Company's clients. Although neither SBS nor SAS has provided or been authorized to perform any services to the Company after their terminations described above effective on or before July 31, 2018, they have apparently continued to operate and claim that the Company owes them for all of their post-termination expenses for the foreseeable future. For the period from August through March 31, 2019, SBS has invoiced the Company for approximately $124,000, and SAS has invoiced the Company for approximately $108,000 for the same period. All such invoices have been rejected by the Company. The Company has determined that it is not obligated to reimburse any such post-termination expense (other than for potentially reimbursing SAS for mutually approved reasonable short term ordinary course transition expenses in previously allowed categories needed by SAS to wind down its business, if any), and that such a payment would be an impermissible gift to a related party under applicable law, which determinations have been supported by SGRP's Audit Committee. The SBS invoices included legal expenses for its continuing defense in the Clothier Case even though SGRP on June 13, 2018, gave SBS notice that it would no longer reimburse any such expenses as a result of SGRP's separate settlement of the Clothier Case. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters, below. The Company expects that SBS and SAS may use every available means to attempt to collect reimbursement from the Company for the foreseeable future for all of their post-termination expense, including repeated litigation. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters , below. On November 23, 2018, SBS petitioned for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. District for Nevada (the "SBS Chapter 11 Case"), and as a result, the claims of SBS' creditors must now generally be pursued in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. The Company believes there can be no assurance that SBS will ever be able to fully pay any damage award resulting from any determination in the Clothier Case or any other judgment or similar amount resulting from any legal determination adverse to SBS. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Related Party Litigation and SBS Bankruptcy , below, and SBS Bankruptcy , below. Any failure of SBS to satisfy any judgment or similar amount resulting from any adverse legal determination against SBS, any claim by SBS, SAS, any other related party or any third party that the Company is somehow liable for any such judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS or SAS or any other related party, any judicial determination that the Company is somehow liable for any such judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS or SAS or any other related party (in whole or in part), or any increase in the Company's use of employees (rather than the services of independent contractors provided by third parties) to perform Field Specialist services domestically, in each case in whole or in part, could have a material adverse effect on the Company or its performance or condition (including its assets, business, clients, capital, cash flow, credit, expenses, financial condition, income, legal costs liabilities, liquidity, locations, marketing, operations, prospects, sales, strategies, taxation or other achievement, results or condition), whether actual or as planned, intended, anticipated, estimated or otherwise expected. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters, below. Current material and potentially material legal proceedings impacting the Company are described in Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies - Legal Matters, below. These descriptions are based on an independent review by the Company and do not reflect the views of SBS, its management or its counsel. Furthermore, even though SBS was solely responsible for its operations, methods and legal compliance, in connection with any proceedings against SBS, SBS continues to claim that the Company is somehow liable to reimburse SBS for its expenses in those proceedings. The Company does not believe there is any basis for such claims and would defend them vigorously. Infotech is currently suing the Company in New York seeking reimbursement for approximately $190,000 respecting alleged lost tax benefits and other expenses it claims to have incurred in connection with SGRP's acquisition of its Brazilian subsidiary and previously denied by both management and SGRP's Audit Committee, who had jurisdiction because Infotech is a related party. Infotech also is threatening to sue the Company in Romania for approximately $900,000 for programming services allegedly owed to the Company's former Romanian subsidiary (sold at book value to Infotech in 2013 ) and not provided to Infotech, for which the Company vigorously denies liability. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters -- Related Party Litigation , below. Peter W. Brown was appointed as a Director on the SGRP Board as of May 3, 2018, replacing Mr. Robert G. Brown upon his retirement from the Board and Company at that date. He is not considered independent because Peter Brown an affiliate and related party in respect of SGRP and was proposed by Mr. Robert G. Brown to represent the Brown family interests. He worked for and is a stockholder of SAS (see above) and certain of its affiliates, he is the nephew of Mr. Robert G. Brown (a current significant stockholder of SGRP and SGRP's former Chairman and director), he is a director of SPAR Brasil Serviços de Merchandising e Tecnologia S.A., a Brazilian corporation ("SPAR BSMT") and owns Earth Investments LLC, ("EILLC"), which owns 10% interest in the SGRP's Brazilian subsidiary. National Merchandising Services, LLC ("NMS"), is a consolidated domestic subsidiary of the Company and is owned jointly by SGRP through its indirect ownership of 51% of the NMS membership interests and by National Merchandising of America, Inc. ("NMA"), through its ownership of the other 49% of the NMS membership interests. Mr. Edward Burdekin is the Chief Executive Officer and President and a director of NMS and also is an executive officer and director of NMA. Ms. Andrea Burdekin, Mr. Burdekin's wife, is the sole stockholder and a director of NMA and a director of NMS. NMA is an affiliate of the Company but is not under the control of or consolidated with the Company. Mr. Burdekin also owns 100% of National Store Retail Services ("NSRS"). Since September 2018, NSRS provided substantially all of the domestic merchandising specialist field force used by NMS. For those services, NMS agrees to reimburse NSRS the total costs for providing those services and to pay NSRS a premium equal to 1.0% of its total cost. Resource Plus of North Florida, Inc. ("RPI"), is a consolidated domestic subsidiary of the Company and is owned jointly by SGRP through its indirect ownership of 51% of the RPI membership interests and by Mr. Richard Justus through his ownership of the other 49% of the RPI membership interests. Mr. Justus has a 50% ownership interest in RJ Holdings which owns the buildings where RPI is headquartered and operates. Both buildings are subleased to RPI at local market rates. International Related Party Services: SGRP Meridian (Pty), Ltd. ("Meridian") is a consolidated international subsidiary of the Company and is owned 51% by SGRP and 23% by FRIEDSHELF 401 Proprietary Limited (owned by Mr. Brian Mason and Mr. Garry Bristow) and 26% by Lindicom Proprietary Limited. Mr. Mason is President and a director and Mr. Bristow is an officer and director of Meridian. Mr. Mason is also an officer and director and 50% shareholder of Merhold Property Trust ("MPT"). Mr. Mason and Mr. Bristow are both officers and directors and both own 50% of Merhold Cape Property Trust ("MCPT"). Mr. Mason and Mr. Bristow are officers and owners of Merhold Holding Trust ("MHT") which provides similar services like MPT. MPT owns the building where Meridian is headquartered and also owns 20 vehicles, all of which are subleased to Meridian. MCPT provides a fleet of 172 vehicles to Meridian under a 4 year lease program. These leases are provided to Meridian at local market rates included in the summary table below. SPAR Todopromo is a consolidated international subsidiary of the Company and is owned 51% by SGRP and 49% by the following individuals: Mr. Juan F. Medina Domenzain, Juan Medina Staines, Julia Cesar Hernandez Vanegas, and Jorge Medina Staines. Mr. Juan F. Medina Domenzain is an officer and director of SPAR Todopromo and is also majority shareholder ( 90% ) of CONAPAD ("CON") which supplied administrative and operational consulting support to SPAR Todopromo in 2016. Mr. Juan F. Medina Domenzain ("JFMD"), partner in SPAR Todopromo, leased a warehouse to SPAR Todopromo. The lease expires on December 31, 2020. On September 8, 2016, the Company (through its Cayman Islands subsidiary) acquired 100% ownership of SGRP Brasil Participações Ltda. ("SGRP Holdings"), a Brazilian limitada (which is a form of limited liability company). SGRP Holdings then completed the formation and acquired a majority of the stock of SPAR Brasil Serviços de Merchandising e Tecnologia S.A., a Brazilian corporation ("SPAR BSMT"). SGRP Holdings and SPAR BSMT are consolidated subsidiaries of the Company. SPAR BSMT is owned 51% by the Company, 39% by JK Consultoria Empresarial Ltda.-ME, a Brazilian limitada ("JKC"), and 10% by Earth Investments, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("EILLC"). JKC is owned by Mr. Jonathan Dagues Martins, a Brazilian citizen and resident ("JDM") and his sister, Ms. Karla Dagues Martins, a Brazilian citizen and resident. JDM is the Chief Executive Officer and President of each SPAR Brazil company pursuant to a Management Agreement between JDM and SPAR BSMT dated September 13, 2016. JDM also is a director of SPAR BSMT. Accordingly, JKC and JDM are each a related party in respect of the Company. EILLC is owned by Mr. Peter W. Brown, a citizen and resident of the USA ("PWB") and a director of SPAR BSMT and SGRP and nephew of SGRP"s largest shareholder, Robert G. Brown. Accordingly, PWB and EILLC are each a related party in respect of the Company. SPAR BSMT has contracted with Ms. Karla Dagues Martins, a Brazilian citizen and resident and JDM's sister and a part owner of SPAR BSMT, to handle the labor litigation cases for SPAR BSMT and its subsidiaries. These legal services are being provided to them at local market rates by Ms. Martins' company, Karla Martins Sociedade de Advogados ("KMSA"). Accordingly, Mr. Jonathan Dagues Martins and Ms. Karla Dagues Martins are each an affiliate and a related party in respect of the Company. Summary of Certain Related Party Transactions: The following costs of affiliates were charged to the Company (in thousands):
|  | Three Months Ended March 31 , |
|  | 201 9 |  |  | 201 8 |
Services provided by affiliates: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Field merchandiser and other expenses (SBS)* |  | $ | - |  |  | $ | 6,729 |
Field administration and other expenses (SAS)* |  |  | - |  |  |  | 1,149 |
National Store Retail Services (NSRS) |  |  | 125 |  |  |  | - |
Office lease expenses (RJ Holdings) |  |  | 102 |  |  |  | 142 |
Office and vehicle lease expenses (MPT) |  |  | 16 |  |  |  | 19 |
Vehicle rental expenses (MCPT) |  |  | 290 |  |  |  | 339 |
Office and vehicle rental expenses (MHT) |  |  | 64 |  |  |  | 53 |
Consulting and administrative services (CON) |  |  | 37 |  |  |  | 59 |
Legal Services (KMSA) |  |  | 22 |  |  |  | 26 |
Warehousing rental (JFMD) |  |  | 12 |  |  |  | 12 |
Total services provided by affiliates |  | $ | 668 |  |  | $ | 8,528 |
* Includes substantially all overhead (in the case of SAS and SBS), or related overhead, plus any applicable markup. The services provided by SAS and SBS were terminated as of July 2018.
Due to affiliates consists of the following (in thousands): |  | March 31 , |  |  | December 31, |
|  | 201 9 |  |  | 201 8 |
Loans from local investors:(1) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Australia |  | $ | 288 |  |  | $ | 226 |
Mexico |  |  | 1,001 |  |  |  | 1,001 |
Brazil |  |  | 139 |  |  |  | 139 |
China |  |  | 1,987 |  |  |  | 2,130 |
South Africa |  |  | 612 |  |  |  | 618 |
Resource Plus |  |  | 531 |  |  |  | 531 |
Total due to affiliates |  | $ | 4,558 |  |  | $ | 4,645 |
( 1 ) Represent loans from the local investors into the Company's subsidiaries (representing their proportionate share of working capital loans). The loans have no payment terms and are due on demand and as such have been classified as current liabilities in the Company's consolidated financial statements. Affinity Insurance: In addition to the above, through August 1, 2018, SAS purchased insurance coverage from Affinity Insurance, Ltd. ("Affinity") for worker compensation, casualty and property insurance risk for itself, for SBS on behalf of Field Specialists that require such insurance coverage (if they do not provide their own), and for the Company. SAS owns a minority (less than 1% ) of the common stock in Affinity. Based on informal arrangements between the parties, the Affinity insurance premiums for such coverage were ultimately charged (through SAS) for their fair share of the costs of that insurance to SMF, SAS (which then charges the Company) and SBS. Since August 1, 2018, the new independent vendor providing the Company's Field Administrators also is a member of and provided such insurance through Affinity for itself and on behalf of the Field Specialists that require such insurance coverage (if they do not provide their own), and the Company is obtaining its own such insurance through Affinity (in which the Company is also now a member). In addition to those required periodic premiums, Affinity also requires payment of cash collateral deposits ("Cash Collateral"), and Cash Collateral amounts are initially determined and from time to time re-determined (upward or downward) by Affinity. From 2013 through August 1, 2018, SAS deposited Cash Collateral with Affinity that now totals approximately $965,000; approximately $379,000 of that Cash Collateral was allocable to SBS and approximately $296,000 of that Cash Collateral was allocable to SMF and the balance of approximately $290,000 was allocated to other affiliates of the Company. The Cash Collateral deposits allocable to SBS have been paid by SAS on behalf of SBS, SAS received advances to make such payments from SBS, and SBS in turn received advances to make such payments from SMF. $675,000 of the Cash Collateral deposits allocable to SAS have been paid with advances to make such payments from SMF. The Cash Collateral deposits allocable to SMF have been paid by SAS on behalf of SMF, and SAS received advances to make such payments from SMF. At the time those advances were requested by Mr. Brown be made by the Company to SAS and SBS, they were not specifically disclosed by Mr. Robert G. Brown (then SGRP executive Chairman), Mr. William H. Bartels (SGRP Vice Chairman then and now) or Mr. James R. Segreto (Chief Financial Officer), to or approved by the Audit Committee or Board (as a related party transaction or otherwise), and at the time Mr. Brown and Mr. Bartels were the sole owners and executives of SAS and SBS. In addition to funding such Cash Collateral, the Company believes that it has provided (after 1999 ) all of the funds for all premium payments to and equity investments in Affinity and that the Company may be owed related amounts by SAS, SBS and their affiliates. The Company also has advanced money to SAS to prepay Affinity insurance premiums (which in the case of workers compensation insurance are a percentage of payroll). The Company had advanced approximately $226,000 to SAS for the 2019 - 2020 Affinity plan year based on estimates that assumed SBS and SAS would be providing services to the Company for the full plan year. However, the Company terminated their services at the end of July 2018 therefore, that insurance was required for only one month's payroll. Upon completion of the Affinity audit for the Affinity 2019 - 2020 plan year, the Company anticipates that SAS will receive a premium refund from Affinity of approximately $150,000 and will be obligated to repay that amount to the Company. Affinity from time to time may ( in the case of a downward adjustment in such periodic premiums or the Cash Collateral) make refunds, rebates or other returns of such periodic premiums and Cash Collateral deposits to SAS for the benefit of itself, SBS and SMF (including any premium refund, as returned or returnable, "Affinity Returns"). The Company believes that SAS is obligated to return to SMF any and all Affinity Returns allocable to SMF in repayment of the corresponding advances from SMF and allocable to SAS in repayment of the corresponding advances from SMF. The Company also believes that SAS is obligated to return to SBS, and SBS is obligated to return to SMF, any and all Affinity Returns allocable to SBS in repayment of the corresponding advances. The Company believes that SBS and SAS will have limited operations after August 1, 2018, that the litigation and likely resulting financial difficulties facing SBS are significant, and that without adequate security, those circumstances puts such repayments to the Company at a material risk. SMF had been in negotiations with SBS and SAS (respectively represented by Robert G. Brown and William H. Bartels, who together own over 59% of SGRP's common stock) since November 2017 for reimbursement and security agreements to document and secure those advances and repayment obligations, which advances total approximately $675,000. Although SBS and SAS had orally accepted those agreements in principal, the negotiations have recently broken down over their refusal to allow enforceable first priority security interests in the Cash Collateral and SAS's policies with and equity interests in Affinity, as well as their demands for post-termination payments and offsets potentially larger than the Cash Collateral. As a result the Company has recorded a reserve for the full $901,000 in such receivables in 2018. The Company is exploring its legal options for recovering the Affinity Returns from SAS and SBS. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies , below. The Company has filed a claim for $375,000 respecting the Affinity Cash Collateral loan to SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Proceeding. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- SBS Bankruptcy , below. Other Related Party Transactions and Arrangements : In July 1999, SMF, SBS and SIT entered into a perpetual software ownership agreement providing that each party independently owned an undivided share of and has the right to unilaterally license and exploit certain portions of the Company's proprietary scheduling, tracking, coordination, reporting and expense software (the "Co-Owned Software") are co-owned with SBS and Infotech and each entered into a non-exclusive royalty-free license from the Company to use certain "SPAR" trademarks in the United States (the "Licensed Marks"). As a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case, SBS' rights in the Co-Owned Software and Licensed Marks are assets of SBS' estate, subject to sale or transfer in any court approved reorganization or liquidation. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters, Related Party Litigation and SBS Bankruptcy , below. Through arrangements with the Company, SBS (owned by Mr. Brown and prior to December 2018 was owned by Mr. Bartels), SAS (owned by Mr. Bartels and family members of Mr. Brown), and other companies owned by Mr. Brown participate in various benefit plans, insurance policies and similar group purchases by the Company, for which the Company charges them their allocable shares of the costs of those group items and the actual costs of all items paid specifically for them. All such transactions between the Company and the above affiliates are paid and/or collected by the Company in the normal course of business. SBS Bankruptcy The Company received no services from SBS after the termination of SBS' services took effect. Furthermore, even though SBS was solely responsible for its operations, methods and legal compliance, SBS continues to claim that the Company is somehow liable to reimburse SBS for its expenses in those proceedings. The Company does not believe there is any basis for such claims and would defend them vigorously. The Company anticipates that SBS may use every available means to attempt to collect reimbursement from the Company for the foreseeable future for all of its post-termination expense. See Domestic Transactions , above. On November 23, 2018, SBS petitioned for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. District for Nevada (the "SBS Chapter 11 Case"), so the pre-petition claims of SBS' creditors must now have to be made in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On March 11, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in the SBS Chapter 11 Case to permit the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case to proceed with the second part of their case to determine damages in the same California Court that rendered the Clothier Determination. The Bankruptcy Court did not modify the automatic stay to permit collection of any resulting damage award from SBS absent further Bankruptcy Court order, and absent such further order, any damage award in Clothier Case will therefore have to be pursued as against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On the advice of SGRP's bankruptcy counsel, management reported and the Audit Committee agreed that while SBS is in the SBS Chapter 11 Case; (a) SBS cannot legally pay the third -party pre-petition invoices and other emailed claims sent via email from SBS to the Company, which are unsecured claims ordinarily payable in chapter 11 as part of the unsecured creditor claim pool (potentially pennies or less per dollar) without specific legal authorization or court order (including under a Bankruptcy Court approved reorganization plan, which is the usual mechanism for paying non-priority claims in a chapter 11 case); (b) any SGRP payment to SBS would likely be utilized to fund the SBS Chapter 11 Case and after that to pay the Clothier claims and other unsecured claimants; (c) SGRP and SMF claims against SBS (including, without limitation, reimbursement claims for funding the Affinity Security Deposits and field payment checks that would have otherwise bounced and indemnification for the Clothier settlement and legal costs) must be and have been asserted in the SBS Chapter 11 Case and can only be satisfied in that case through a Court permitted setoff (potentially dollar-for-dollar), or from the unsecured creditor pool (potentially pennies or less per dollar); (d) any resolution of claims between SBS and SGRP sought (at this time) by SBS from the Bankruptcy Court requires such court's approval after notice to creditors (including the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case) and the U.S. Trustee, so finality can only be achieved in the SBS Chapter 11 Case; and (e) when SBS seeks payment through the Bankruptcy Court (whether for pre- or post-petition claims), SGRP has the right to defend them on the merits and to assert an offset for amounts owed to SMF and SGRP (potentially dollar-for-dollar). Accordingly, Management recommended and the Audit Committee agreed that it would be in the best interest of all stockholders: (i) to submit SGRP and SMF claims against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case in order to preserve their value (including as an offset against SBS' claims), particularly since those claims against SBS exceed amounts potentially owed to SBS; (ii) not to voluntarily pay any SBS obligations directly to targeted SBS creditors, as such payments would reduce that offset value (potentially dollar-for-dollar), subvert the bankruptcy process and potentially expose SGRP and SMF to direct future liability (for example, liability for a lawsuit if SGRP voluntarily pays for its defense); and (iii) only to make payments to or on behalf of SBS to the extent proven and required in the SBS Chapter 11 Case or other court with jurisdiction over the dispute. As a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case, the claims of SBS' creditors must now generally be pursued in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On March 11, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in the SBS Chapter 11 Case to permit the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case to proceed with the second part of the case to determine damages against SBS in the same California Court that rendered the Clothier Determination. However, the Bankruptcy Court did not modify the automatic stay to permit collection from SBS of any resulting damage award against it absent further Bankruptcy Court order, and therefore and absent such further order, any such damage award will have to be pursued against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. Accordingly, the Company believes there can be no assurance that SBS will ever be able to fully pay any such damage award resulting from any determination in the Clothier Case or any other judgment or similar amount resulting from any legal determination adverse to SBS. A review of the SBS' filings in the SBS Chapter 11 Case shows that SBS has listed the Company as a contingent, unliquidated, disputed creditor, but in its most recently filed amended schedules in that Case, SBS has not expressly scheduled any claims of SBS against the Company. In this regard, on January 10, 2019, SBS filed schedules that reflected a note receivable in the amount of $300,000 due from the Company. However, on both February 7 and 12, 2019, SBS filed amended schedules that omitted such note receivable. SBS' amended schedules filed on February 12, 2019, reflects a $300,000 increase in SBS' accounts receivable. None of those schedules name the companies owing those receivables. In depositions Mr. Brown has testified as to various amounts that may be owed to SBS by various parties (including the Company) but the Company has not been able to independently verify the accuracy of such testimony, and any such testimony would not be conclusive evidence or proof of such claim against the Company, and could be corrected or disclaimed as an error afterwards. In any event, the Company believes that it owes nothing to SBS while the Company has substantial claims asserted against SBS. On March 18, 2019, the Company filed claims in the SBS Chapter 11 Case seeking reimbursement for $378,838 for SMF's funding of the Affinity Security Deposits and $12,963 for SMF's funding of the field payment checks that would have otherwise bounced, and $1,839,459 for indemnification of SGRP for the Clothier settlement (see below) and legal costs and an unspecified amount for indemnification of SGRP for the Hogan action (see Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements, Commitments and Contingencies - Legal Matters - SBS Clothier Litigation , below) and other yet to be discovered indemnified claims.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_DisclosureTextBlockAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for related party transactions. Examples of related party transactions include transactions between (a) a parent company and its subsidiary; (b) subsidiaries of a common parent; (c) and entity and its principal owners; and (d) affiliates. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 850 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2122745 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RelatedPartyTransactionsDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration