Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies 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 $845 and $2,221 as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, which is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. The Company expenses legal fees in the period in which they are incurred. 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. The Judge marked the case as closed on the docket on November 10, 2021. 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. A revised motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the Court in February 2022 and this motion is pending. 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies

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 $845 and $2,221 as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, which is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

The Company expenses legal fees in the period in which they are incurred.

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. The Judge marked the case as closed on the docket on November 10, 2021.

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. A revised motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the Court in February 2022 and this motion is pending.

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.