v3.21.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and legal proceedings Certain of the Company’s outstanding legal matters include speculative claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts of damages. The Company regularly evaluates developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of any potential liability and makes adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both the likelihood of there being any potential liability and the estimated amount of a loss related to the Company’s legal matters. With respect to the Company’s outstanding legal matters, based on its current knowledge, the Company’s management believes that the amount or range of a potential loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. The Company evaluated the outstanding legal matters and assessed the probability and likelihood of the occurrence of liability. Based on management’s estimates, the Company has recorded accruals of $890 and $2,221 as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, which is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company expenses legal fees in the period in which they are incurred. Cordial Effective October 2014, XpresSpa terminated its former Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“ACDBE”) partner, Cordial Endeavor Concessions of Atlanta, LLC (“Cordial”), in several store locations at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Cordial filed a series of complaints with the City of Atlanta, both before and after the termination, in which Cordial alleged, among other things, that the termination was not valid and that XpresSpa unlawfully retaliated against Cordial when Cordial raised concerns about the joint venture. In response to the numerous complaints it received from Cordial, the City of Atlanta required the parties to engage in two mediations. After the termination of the relationship with Cordial, XpresSpa sought to substitute two new ACDBE partners in place of Cordial. In April 2015, Cordial filed a complaint with the United States Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), which oversees the City of Atlanta with regard to airport ACDBE programs, and, in December 2015, the FAA instructed that the City of Atlanta review XpresSpa’s request to substitute new partners in lieu of Cordial and Cordial’s claims of retaliation. In response to the FAA instruction, pursuant to a corrective action plan approved by the FAA, the City of Atlanta held a hearing in February 2016 and ruled in favor of XpresSpa on such substitution and claims of retaliation. Cordial submitted a further complaint to the FAA claiming that the City of Atlanta was biased against Cordial and that the City of Atlanta’s decision was wrong. In August 2016, the parties met with the FAA. On October 4, 2016, the FAA sent a letter to the City of Atlanta directing that the City of Atlanta retract previous findings on Cordial’s allegations and engage an independent third party to investigate issues previously decided by Atlanta. The FAA also directed that the City of Atlanta determine monies potentially due to Cordial. On January 3, 2017, XpresSpa filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Cordial and several related parties. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, tortious interference, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. XpresSpa is seeking damages, declaratory judgment, and rescission/termination of certain agreements, disgorgement of revenue, fees and costs, and various other relief. On February 21, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2017, XpresSpa filed a first amended complaint against the defendants. On April 5, 2017, Cordial filed a motion to dismiss. On September 12, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On November 2, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss which was entered on November 13, 2017. On December 22, 2017, XpresSpa filed a notice of appeal, and on September 24, 2018, XpresSpa perfected its appellate rights and submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of New York, First Department appellate court. Oral argument on the appeal went forward on March 20, 2019. On March 30, 2018, Cordial filed a lawsuit against XpresSpa Group, a subsidiary of XpresSpa Group, and several additional parties in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, alleging the violation of Cordial’s civil rights, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, conversion, retaliation, and unjust enrichment. Cordial threated to seek punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, accounting, indemnification, and declaratory judgment as to the status of the membership interests of XpresSpa and Cordial in the joint venture and Cordial’s right to profit distributions and management fees from the joint venture. On May 4, 2018, the defendants moved the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, the Court granted an additional extension of time for the defendants’ response until September 7, 2018, and thereafter provided another extension pending the Court’s consideration of XpresSpa’s Motion to Stay all action in the Georgia lawsuit, pending resolution of the New York lawsuit and the FAA action. On October 29, 2018, XpresSpa’s Motion to Stay was denied. Prior to resolution of the Motion to Stay, Cordial filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Motion”), seeking to enjoin the defendants and specifically XpresSpa, from, among other things, distributing any cash flow, net profits, or management fees, or otherwise expending resources beyond necessary operating expenses. XpresSpa filed an opposition and, in a decision entered December 26, 2018, the Court denied Cordial’s TRO Motion entirely. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on November 20, 2018. A Director’s Determination was issued by the FAA in connection with the Part 16 Complaint (“Part 16 Proceeding”) filed by Cordial against the City of Atlanta (“City”) in 2017 (“Director’s Determination”). The Company and Cordial were not parties to the FAA action, and had no opportunity to present evidence or otherwise be heard in such action. The Director’s Determination concluded that the City was not in compliance with certain Federal obligations concerning the federal government’s ACDBE program, including relating to the City’s oversight of the Joint Venture Operating Agreement between the Company and Cordial, Cordial’s termination, and Cordial’s retaliation and harassment claims, and the City was ordered to achieve compliance in accordance with the Director’s Determination. The Director’s Determination does not constitute a Final Agency Decision and it is not subject to judicial review, pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2). Because the Company is not a party to the Part 16 Proceeding, the Company would not be considered “a party adversely affected by the Director’s Determination” with a right of appeal to the FAA Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights. On August 7, 2019, the Company filed a response, advising the U.S. District Court that: (i) the Company is not party to the FAA proceeding and therefore had no opportunity to present evidence or otherwise be heard in such action; (ii) as non-party, the Company is not bound by the Director’s Determination; and (iii) the FAA cannot dictate the interpretation or enforceability of the contract between Cordial and the Company, which is the subject of the U.S. District Court action initiated by Cordial and the New York State Court action initiated by the Company. On August 16, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting, in part, the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed all federal claims alleged in the Complaint against all Defendants, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over the remaining state law claims alleged in the Complaint, and remanded the case to the Superior Court of Fulton County. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the federal court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case was docketed on October 15, 2019. In response to the numerous complaints it received from Cordial, the City of Atlanta required the parties to engage in mediation. On November 22, 2019, a Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") and a Confidential Payment Agreement (the "Payment Agreement") have been executed by the applicable parties. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, all pending litigation was dismissed. Also, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement terms, the City agreed to approve new five-year leases for the Company and Cordial to operate as joint venture partners for spas located on Concourse A and Concourse C of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport ("together, "Leases"). The city has approved the new Leases, and the Leases have been executed by the Company and the City. The parties are in the process of negotiating and completing an operating agreement. Pursuant to the Payment Agreement, the Company has recorded an expense, made payments and accrued the balance of the amounts due thereunder, and has included that balance in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities. ​ In re Chen et al. In March 2015, four former XpresSpa employees who worked at XpresSpa locations in John F. Kennedy International Airport and LaGuardia Airport filed a putative class and collective action wage-hour litigation in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. In re Chen et al., CV 15-1347 (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs claim that they and other spa technicians around the country were misclassified as exempt commissioned salespersons under Section 7(i) of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Plaintiffs also assert class claims for unpaid overtime on behalf of New York spa technicians under the New York Labor Law, and discriminatory employment practices under New York State and City laws. On July 1, 2015, the plaintiffs moved to have the court authorize notice of the FLSA misclassification claim sent to all employees in the spa technician job classification at XpresSpa locations around the country in the last three years. Defendants opposed the motion. On February 16, 2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report & Recommendation, recommending that the District Court Judge grant the plaintiffs’ motion. On March 1, 2016, the defendants filed Opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation, arguing that the District Court Judge should reject the Magistrate Judge’s findings. On September 23, 2016, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and conditionally certified the class. The parties held a mediation on February 28, 2017, and reached an agreement on a settlement in principle. On September 6, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. On September 15, 2017, the parties filed a motion for settlement approval with the Court. XpresSpa subsequently paid the agreed-upon settlement amount to the settlement claims administrator to be held in escrow pending a fairness hearing and final approval by the Court. On March 30, 2018, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order denying the motion without prejudice to renewal due to questions and concerns the Court had about certain settlement terms. On April 24, 2018, the parties jointly submitted a supplemental letter to the Court advocating for the fairness and adequacy of the settlement and appeared in Court on April 25, 2018 for a hearing to discuss the settlement terms in greater detail with the assigned Magistrate Judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court still had questions about the adequacy and fairness of the settlement terms, and the Judge asked that the parties jointly submit additional information to the Court addressing the open issues. The parties submitted such information to the Court on May 18, 2018. On August 21, 2019, the Court issued an Order denying the parties’ motion for preliminary approval of the revised settlement, as the Court still had concerns about several of the settlement terms. At the December 6, 2019 status conference with the Court, the Court reiterated its denial of preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement. The Court instructed a notice of pendency to be disseminated to putative collective members. Notice was sent out in early February 2020 and approximately 415 individuals have joined the case. On June 6, 2020, the Company participated in a status conference with the Court, and the parties discussed the possibility of entering into a new settlement agreement that addresses the Court’s concerns. On or about August 5, 2020, the parties entered into settlement agreements and sought a preliminary approval order from the Court. On March 30, 2021, the Court issued an Order conditionally granting the motion for preliminary approval subject to resolution of certain issues pertaining to administration of the settlement. On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to the Court regarding their proposed resolution on such issues and the Court ultimately granted preliminary approval on May 25, 2021. Notice of the settlement was sent out to the class members on June 22, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting the parties’ motion for final approval of the settlement. There were no appeals and the settlement was effective as of November 2, 2021. The Settlement Administrator has confirmed to the parties that settlement checks have been distributed to the Class on November 5, 2021. A joint status letter will be submitted to the Court on November 8, 2021 confirming as such and requesting that the case be closed. Kainz v. FORM Holdings Corp. et al. On March 20, 2019, a second suit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against FORM, seven of its directors and former directors, as well as a managing director of Mistral Equity Partners (“Mistral”). The individual plaintiff, a shareholder of XpresSpa Holdings, LLC at the time of the merger with FORM in December 2016, alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false statements concerning, inter alia, the merger and the independence of FORM’s board of directors, violated Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, breached the merger agreement by making false and misleading statements concerning the merger and fraudulently induced the plaintiff into signing the joinder agreement related to the merger. On May 8, 2019, the Company and its directors and the managing director of Mistral filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 5, 2019, plaintiffs opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion for a partial stay. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of June 19, 2019. On November 13, 2019, the matter was dismissed in its entirety. On December 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration to vacate the order and judgment, dismissing the action, and for leave to amend the complaint. The motion was fully briefed as of February 6, 2020. On April 1, 2020, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion in full. On April 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 1, 2020, plaintiff filed his appellate brief. On June 16, 2020, the Second Circuit entered the parties’ non-dispositive stipulation, dismissing certain defendant-appellees, including the Company. On July 6, 2020, the remaining defendants filed their opposition brief. On July 27, 2020, the plaintiff filed their reply brief. On July 28, 2020, the Second Circuit marked plaintiff’s reply brief as defective because it was filed a week late. Subsequently, plaintiff has moved to request permission to file a late reply brief. On January 11, 2021, the judgment of the Court was affirmed by the Second Circuit court. Route1 On or about May 23, 2018, Route1 Inc., Route1 Security Corporation (together, “Route1”) and Group Mobile Int’l, LLC (“Group Mobile”) commenced a legal proceeding against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Route1 and Group Mobile sought damages of $567,000 in relation to alleged breaches of a Membership Purchase Agreement entered into between Route1 and the Company on or about March 7, 2018, pursuant to which Route1 acquired the Company’s 100% membership interest in Group Mobile. The Company counterclaimed against the Plaintiffs for amounts owed to the Company in relation to the sale of Excluded Inventory (as defined in the Membership Purchase Agreement) and sought damages thereon. The Company delivered a draft amended counterclaim to the Plaintiffs on or around November 2019 seeking, among other things, damages. The Company sought Plaintiffs’ consent to amend its counterclaim. Examinations for discovery were scheduled to take place in Toronto, Canada in June 2020. The action settled at mediation on or about September 17, 2020. The parties agreed to dismiss the claim and the counterclaim, subject to XpresSpa’s right to commence an application to seek rectification of certain shares and warrants that were issued in connection with the Membership Purchase Agreement. On September 21, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice entered an Order dismissing, without costs, the action and counterclaim. XpresSpa was granted the Order seeking the rectification of the shares and warrant and that matter was completed in March 2021. ​ Rodger Jenkins and Gregory Jones v. XpresSpa Group, Inc. In March 2019, Rodger Jenkins and Gregory Jones filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract of the stock purchase agreement related to the Company’s acquisition of Excalibur Integrated Systems, Inc. and seeks specific performance, compensatory damages and other fees, expenses, and costs. When this action was first commenced, the plaintiffs had demanded cash or stock in the sum of $750. On or about January 3, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their pleading to increase their total demand to $1,500. On December 11, 2020, the court issued its decision and order on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment in which the court: (a) awarded plaintiffs damages in the sum of $750, plus prejudgment interest; (b) granted that portion of the Company’s motion dismissing Jenkins’s claim for $600 based on his having executed a written waiver of his right to receive that sum; and (c) denied both sides’ motions with respect to Jones’s claim to recover $150 and directed Jones’s claim to be tried. The court had stated that the trial on the remaining portion of Jones’s claim will occur in May 2021. The court held a trial on the remaining portion of Jones’s claim for the “second $750” on May 17-18, 2021. Following the trial, the court dismissed that portion of Jones’s claim. On May 28, 2021, the court entered judgment against the Company based on its ruling in plaintiffs’ favor as to the “first $750.” The total amount of the judgment, with prejudgment interest, is $948. The rate of post-judgment interest is 0.04 % (i.e. 4/10 of 1%). On June 24, 2021, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the judgment and posted the necessary bond. On August 18, 2021, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the "Settlement Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, all pending litigation was dismissed. On August 18, 2021, satisfaction of judgment was entered with the court. ​ Kyle Collins v. Spa Products Import & Distribution Co., LLC et al This is a combined class action and California Private Attorney’s General Act (“PAGA”) action. Plaintiff seeks to recover wages, penalties and PAGA penalties for claims for (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest breaks, (3) failure to pay overtime, (4) inaccurate wage statements, (5) waiting time penalties, and (6) PAGA penalties of $0.1 per employee per pay period per violation. There are approximately 240 current and former employees in the litigation class. The parties agreed to mediation on May 26, 2020, however, due to COVID-19 the parties subsequently stayed all proceedings. The mediation session occurred on March 18, 2021, and the parties reached a settlement in principle. The parties are currently in the process of preparing/finalizing settlement papers for filing with the court. ​ Mary Anne Bowen v. XpresSpa Miami Airport, LLC ​ On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff Mary Anne Bowen (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, asserting two causes of action: (I) Respondent Superior to hold XpresSpa accountable for the actions of its employee; and (II) Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision of an employee. On December 21, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, arguing that XpresSpa cannot be held liable for the acts of an employee who was acting outside the scope of his employment (Count I) and that Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead XpresSpa had notice of the employee’s unfitness (Count II). The Motion to Dismiss was granted. However, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which the Company answered. On June 30, 2021, the parties participated in a mediation session and an agreement was reached on the terms of a settlement. Settlement papers were signed on July 1, 2021, and a stipulation of dismissal was filed with the Court on July 26, 2021. Accordingly, this case is now closed. ​ In addition to those matters specifically set forth herein, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity, or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than the Company currently anticipates, could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In the event that an action is brought against the Company or one of its subsidiaries, the Company will investigate the allegation and vigorously defend itself. Leases XpresSpa is contingently liable to a surety company under certain general indemnity agreements required by various airports relating to its lease agreements. XpresSpa agrees to indemnify the surety for any payments made on contracts of suretyship, guaranty, or indemnity. The Company believes that all contingent liabilities will be satisfied by its performance under the specified lease agreements. ​ ​

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