Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the “Shanklin Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the “Raske Litigation”). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case “may involve matters in the public interest.” The judge’s letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina’s motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs’ remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others, including Roberta Little (the “Pressley Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against Little. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske. By Order dated May 8, 2020 (the “Class Certification Order”), the Court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina’s motions for summary judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later date. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the actions. In addition to the legal proceedings disclosed herein, the Company is also engaged in various legal proceedings that are routine in nature and incidental to its business. None of these routine proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, are believed likely, in the Company's opinion, to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the “Shanklin Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the “Raske Litigation”). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case “may involve matters in the public interest.” The judge’s letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina’s motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs’ remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others, including Roberta Little (the “Pressley Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against Little.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske.

By Order dated May 8, 2020 (the “Class Certification Order”), the Court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina’s motions for summary judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later date.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the actions.

In addition to the legal proceedings disclosed herein, the Company is also engaged in various legal proceedings that are routine in nature and incidental to its business. None of these routine proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, are believed likely, in the Company's opinion, to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations.