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, Inc. ("Nasdaq"), and other applicable law to ensure that the overall economic and other terms will be (or continue to be)

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.

In addition, in order to (among other things) assist the Board and the Audit Committee in connection with an overall review of the Company's related party transactions and certain worker classification-related litigation matters, in

April 2017

the Board formed a special subcommittee of the Audit Committee (the "Special Subcommittee") to (among other things) review the structure, documentation, fairness, conflicts, fidelity, appropriateness, and practices respecting each of the relationships and transactions discussed in this Note.

The Special Subcommittee engaged Morrison Valuation & Forensic Services, LLC ("Morrison"), to perform a

third

-party financial evaluation of certain domestic related party relationships and transactions (principally with SAS and SBS of the Company, which included the review of certain financial records of the Company (but

not

those of its affiliates)) and discussions with management of the Company. Their task included (among other things) the identification and mapping of and apparent purposes for and benefits from cash flows between the Company and its affiliates. Morrison identified a number of transactions between the parties, while

not

material, were inefficient, time consuming and of limited business value to the parties. They included expense reimbursement for indirect charges for supply purchases, corporate vendor service cost and use of corporate credit cards in the payment of vendor services. These inefficiencies have largely resolved themselves since the relationship with SAS and SBS has ended and others have been and will continue to be addressed by the Company. The Special Subcommittee also engaged Holland & Knight to provide ongoing legal advice on related party issues, and Paul Hastings to provide ongoing legal advice on independent contractor classification issues (including the SBS Clothier Case). See Note

to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements –

Commitments and Contingencies

–

Legal Matters

, 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

to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements –

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

, below).

The Company is currently unable to predict the remaining duration and final results of this review by the Special Subcommittee.

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 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 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). 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,

3018

(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.

Through

July 27, 2018,

the Company executed the services it provides to its domestic clients primarily through field merchandising, auditing, assembly and other field personnel (each a "Field Specialist"), substantially all of whom had been independent contractors provided by SBS, and administers those services through local, regional, district and other personnel (each a "Field Administrator"), substantially all of whom had been provided by SAS. The Company paid

$15.4

million and

$19.6

million during the

nine

months ended

September 30, 2018

and

2017,

respectively, to SBS for its provision as needed of approximately

3,900

of SBS's available Field Specialists in the U.S.A. (which amounted to approximately

36%

and

75%

of the Company's total domestic Field Specialist expense for the

nine

months ended

September 30, 2018

and

2017,

respectively). The Company paid

$2.7

million and

$3.2

million for the

nine

months ended

September 30, 2018

and

2017,

respectively, to SAS for its provision of its

and

full-time regional and district administrators (which amounted to approximately

68%

and

90%

of the Company's total domestic field administrative service cost for the

nine

months ended

September 30, 2018

and

2017

). 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, legal 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). The total cost recorded by the Company for the expenses of SBS and SAS in providing their services to the Company, including the "Cost Plus Fee" arrangement (as defined and discussed below) and other expenses paid directly by the Company on behalf of and invoiced to SBS and SAS, was

$18.2

million and

$22.8

million, for the

nine

months ended

September 30, 2018

and

2017,

respectively.

The terms of the Amended and Restated Field Service Agreement with SBS dated as of

January 1, 2004,

as amended in

2011,

and the Amended and Restated Field Management Agreement with SAS dated as of

January 1, 2004 (

each a "Prior Agreement"), defined reimbursable expenses and established a "Cost Plus Fee" arrangement where the Company paid SBS and SAS for their costs of providing those services plus a fixed percentage of such reimbursable expenses (the "Cost Plus Fee"). The parties have had negotiations respecting replacement agreements since the Prior Agreements expired on

November 30, 2014.

As further described below, a new Field Administration Agreement was entered into with SAS in

2016.

The Company and SBS had agreed to an arrangement for a revised Cost Plus Fee equal to

2.96%

of the Field Specialists costs and certain other approved reimbursable expenses incurred by SBS in performing services for the Company, subject to certain offsetting credits. This arrangement went into effect on and had applied since

December 1, 2014.

The Company had offered a new agreement to SBS confirming that reimbursable expenses were subject to review and approval by the Company, but SBS had 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, and the Company's location of an independent

third

party company who would provide comparable services on substantially better terms, on

May 23, 2018,

the Company gave a termination notice to SBS specifying on or before

August 15, 2018,

as the end of the Service Term. The actual termination of services occurred on

July 27, 2018,

and the Company has engaged that independent

third

party company to replace those services formerly provided by SBS.

Even though the Company had paid SBS for all services provided through that date, SBS notified the Company that there

may

not

be sufficient funds in their bank accounts to honor all payments they had made to their Field Specialists. Based on this notice, the Company withheld approximately

$125,000

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 insure all SBS Field Specialists that had provided services to the Company are properly compensated for those services. The

$125,000

has been completely exhausted and the Company was required to fund an additional

$11,000

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.

The Company has reached a non-exclusive agreement with an independent

third

-party vendor to provide substantially all of the domestic Field Specialist services used by the Company. The Company transitioned to such new vendor during

July 2018,

and such transition was virtually unnoticeable to the Company's clients

SBS compensation to any officer, director or other related party had been reimbursed or approved to date by the Company, and

such compensation reimbursements were made or approved under SBS's Prior Agreement. This is

not

a restriction on SBS since SBS is

not

controlled by the Company and

may

pay any compensation to any person that SBS desires out of its own funds. However, SBS had in the past invoiced the Company for certain such compensation payments, but the Company had rejected those invoices as non-reimbursable expenses. 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

nine

months ended

September 30, 2018

and

2017

(in the amounts of

$105,000

and

$218,000,

respectively), after determination (on a case by case basis) that those defense expenses were costs of providing services to the Company.

May 15, 2017,

the Company advised SBS that, since there was

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.

June 13, 2018,

the Company gave SBS notice that it would

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).

There can be

assurance that SBS will be able to satisfy any such judgment or similar amount resulting from any adverse legal determination. In addition, SBS

may

claim that the Company is somehow liable for any such judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS and pursue that claim with litigation, there can be

assurance that 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, and there can be

assurance that the Company will be able to successfully defend any claim. 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, 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

to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements –

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

, below.

Current material and potentially material legal proceedings impacting the Company are described in Note

to the Company's Condensed 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. SBS continues to claim that the Company is somehow liable to reimburse SBS for its expenses in those proceedings.

June 14, 2016,

SAS and SMF entered into a new Field Administration Agreement (the "SAS Agreement"). In order to provide continuity with SAS's Prior Agreement, the SAS Agreement is effective and governs the relationship of the parties as of

December 1, 2014,

and amends, restates and completely replaces SAS's Prior Agreement. The SAS Agreement more clearly defines reimbursable and excluded expenses and the budget and approval procedures and continues the indemnifications and releases provided by SAS's Prior Agreement (which indemnifications and releases were and are comparable to those applicable to SGRP's directors and executive officers under its By-Laws and applicable law). Specifically, the SAS Agreement reduced the Cost Plus Fee from

effective as of

June 1, 2016.

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. 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.

SGRP's Audit Committee has approved the SAS Agreement pursuant to its specific duty and responsibility to review and approve the overall fairness of all material related-party transactions, as more fully provided above in this note.

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 or approved to date by the Company, and

such compensation reimbursements were made or approved under SAS's Prior Agreement. This is

not

a restriction on SAS since SAS is

not

controlled by the Company and

may

pay 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).

Although neither SBS nor SAS has provided 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 in perpetuity. For

August

and

September,

SBS has invoiced the Company for approximately

$105,000,

and SAS has invoiced the Company for approximately

$42,000.

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 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

longer reimburse any such expenses as a result of SGRP's separate settlement of the Clothier Case. The Company expects that SBS and SAS will use every available means to attempt to collect reimbursement in perpetuity from the Company for all of their post-termination expense, including repeated litigation in the event that the SGRP prevails in the By-Laws Action or

225

Action (see Note

to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements –

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

, 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. Peter W. Brown was an official observer at the meetings of SGRP's Board from

2014

through

December 2016.

Peter W. Brown also is, and since

2013

has been, a director of Affinity Insurance, Ltd (see Affinity Insurance, below).

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.

Resource Plus, 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. (See Note

to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

–

Purchase of Interest in Subsidiaries

, below).

International Related Party Services:

SGRP Meridian (Pty), Ltd. ("Meridian") is a consolidated international subsidiary of the Company and is owned

51%

by SGRP and

49%

by the following individuals: Mr. Brian Mason, Mr. Garry Bristow, and Mr. Adrian Wingfield. 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, Mr. Bristow and Mr. Wingfield are all officers and own

46.7%,

20%

and

33.3%,

respectively of Merhold Holding Trust ("MHT") which provides similar services like MPT. MPT owns the building where Meridian is headquartered and also owns

vehicles all of which are subleased to Meridian. MCPT provides a fleet of

172

vehicles to Meridian under a

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.

August 2016,

Mr. Juan F. Medina Domenzain ("JFMD"), partner in SPAR Todopromo, purchased the warehouse that was being leased by SPAR Todopromo. The lease expires on

December 31, 2020.

The Company’s subsidiary in Brazil, SPAR BSMT, has contracted with Ms. Karla Dagues Martins, a Brazilian citizen and resident sister to Mr. Jonathan Dagues Martins, President 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 Related Party Transactions:

The Company believes it is the largest and most important customer of SBS, SAS, MPT, MCPT, MHT, CON, JFMD and KMSA (and from time to time

may

be their only customer), and accordingly the Company generally has been able to negotiate better terms, receives more personal and responsive service and is more likely to receive credits and other financial accommodations from SBS, SAS, MPT, MCPT, MHT, CON, JFMD and KMSA than the Company could reasonably expect to receive from an unrelated service provider who has significant other customers and business. SBS, SAS and other material affiliate contracts and arrangements are annually reviewed and considered for approval by SGRP's Audit Committee, subject to the ongoing negotiations with SBS as described above.

The following costs of affiliates were charged to the Company (in thousands):

	Three Months Ended September 30 ,				Nine Months Ended September 30 ,
	201 8		201 7		201 8		201 7
Services provided by affiliates:
Field merchandiser and other expenses (SBS)	$	2,063	$	6,788	$	15,353	$	19,593
Field administration and other expenses (SAS)		475		1,044		2,738		3,178
Office and vehicle rental expenses (MPT)		15		30		44		46
Vehicle rental expenses (MCPT)		292		579		839		870
Office and vehicle rental expenses (MHT)		53		85		142		126
Consulting and administrative services (CON)		49		61		160		181
Legal Services (KMSA)		40		31		93		79
Warehousing rental (JFMD)		13		13		37		38

Total services provided by affiliates	$	3,000	$	8,631	$	19,406	$	24,111

* Includes substantially all overhead (in the case of SAS and SBS), or related overhead, plus any applicable markup.

Due to affiliates consists of the following (in thousands):	September 30,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Loans from local investors:(1)
Australia	$	231	$	250
Mexico		1,001		1,001
Brazil		139		139
China		2,941		719
South Africa		16		24
Resource Plus		731		–
Accrued Expenses due to affiliates:
SBS/SAS		55		893
Total due to affiliates	$	5,114	$	3,026

(

) Represent loans from the local investors into the Company's subsidiaries (representing their proportionate share of working capital loans). The loans have

payment terms and are due on demand and as such have been classified as current liabilities in the Company's condensed 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 its Field Specialists that require such insurance coverage (all who do

not

provide their own), and for the Company. SAS owns a minority (less than

) 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 it 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 by the Company to SAS and SBS were

not

specifically disclosed by Mr. Robert G. Brown (then SGRP executive Chairman) or Mr. William H. Bartels (SGRP Vice Chairman then and now) 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.

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 (as returned, "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.

Since

November 2017,

SMF has 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) for reimbursement and security agreements to document, confirm 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 fully perfected

first

priority security interests in the Cash Collateral and SAS's policies with and equity interests in Affinity and their demands for post-termination payments and offsets potentially larger than the Cash Collateral.

Given the unwillingness of SBS and SAS (respectively represented by Robert G. Brown and William H. Bartels, who together own over

59%

of SGRP’s common stock) to document, confirm and secure those advances and repayment obligations and the resulting material risk of non-payment by them to the Company, the Company has recorded a reserve for the full

$675,000

in such receivables in the

nine

months ended

September 30, 2018,

and the Company is exploring its legal options for recovering the Affinity Returns from SAS and SBS. See Note

to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements –

Settlement and Other Charges

, above.

Other Related Party Transactions and Arrangements

July 1999,

SMF, SBS and SIT entered into a perpetual software ownership agreement providing that each party independently owned an undivided share of and had the right to unilaterally license and exploit their "Business Manager" internet job scheduling software (which had been jointly developed by such parties), and all related improvements, revisions, developments and documentation from time to time voluntarily made or procured by any of them at its own expense. Business Manager and its other proprietary software and applications are used by the Company for (among other things) the scheduling, tracking, coordination and reporting of its merchandising and marketing services and are accessible via the internet or other applicable telecommunication network by the authorized representatives of the Company and its clients through their respective computers and mobile devices. In addition, SPAR Trademarks, Inc. ("STM"), a wholly owned subsidiary of SGRP, SBS and SIT entered into separate perpetual trademark licensing agreements whereby STM has granted non-exclusive royalty-free licenses to SIT and SBS (and through them to their commonly controlled subsidiaries and affiliates by sublicenses, including SAS) for their continued use of the name "SPAR" and certain other trademarks and related rights of STM. SBS and SAS provide services to the Company, as described above, SIT assisted in the Brazilian acquisition at a cost to the Company of

$49,000,

as described below, and SIT

longer provides services to and does

not

compete with the Company.

Through arrangements with the Company, SBS (owned by Mr. Bartels and Mr. Brown), 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.