Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Contingencies [Abstract]

Contingencies

Note 15. Contingencies

On October 9, 2020, a purported stockholder of Turning Point Brands, Inc., Paul-Emile Berteau, filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the merger of SDI with a TPB subsidiary pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of April 7, 2020, by and among TPB, SDI and Merger Sub. The complaint purports to assert two derivative counts for breach of fiduciary duty on TPB’s behalf and against the TPB Board of Directors and certain SDI affiliates. The third count purports to assert a direct claim against TPB and its Board of Directors based on allegations that TPB’s Amended and Restated Bylaws are inconsistent with TPB’s certificate of incorporation. On October 26, 2020, the TPB Board of Directors adopted Amendment No. 1 to TPB’s Amended and Restated Bylaws, which amended the challenged section of the bylaws. On June 30, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Among other things, the court dismissed TPB director H.C. Charles Diao as a defendant in the action and dismissed the third count of the plaintiff’s complaint as moot. The remaining defendants answered the complaint on August 23, 2021. While the Company believes it has good and valid defenses to the claims, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in this case, and it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.

Other major tobacco companies are defendants in product liability claims. In a number of these cases, the amounts of punitive and compensatory damages sought are significant and, if such a claim were brought against the Company, could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. The Company is subject to several lawsuits alleging personal injuries resulting from malfunctioning vaporizer devices or batteries and may be subject to claims in the future relating to other NewGen products. The Company is still evaluating these claims and the potential defenses to them. For example, the Company did not design or manufacture the products at issue; rather, the Company was merely the distributor. Nonetheless, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in these cases, and they could have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.

We have several subsidiaries engaged in making, distributing, and selling vapor products. As a result of the overall publicity and controversy surrounding the vapor industry generally, many companies have received informational subpoenas from various regulatory bodies and in some jurisdictions regulatory lawsuits have been filed regarding marketing practices and possible underage sales. We expect that our subsidiaries will be subject to some such cases and investigative requests. In the acquisition of the vapor businesses, we negotiated financial “hold-backs”, which we expect to be able to use to defray expenses associated with the information production and the cost of defending any such lawsuits as well as the franchisee matter. To the extent that litigation becomes necessary, we believe that the subsidiaries have strong factual and legal defenses against claims that they unfairly marketed vapor products.

We have two franchisor subsidiaries. Like many franchise businesses, in the ordinary course of their business, these subsidiaries are from time to time responding parties to arbitration demands brought by franchisees.

We have reached an agreement to arbitrate a claim brought by a former franchisee. This matter relates to the termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor for failure to pay franchising fees and our subsequent demand that the franchisee cease using our marks and de-image locations formerly housing the franchises. The franchisee is claiming tortious interference and conversion. We believe the franchisor’s ultimate termination of the franchise agreement for multiple uncured material defaults by the franchisee was proper. We believe we have good and valid substantive defenses against the claims and intend on vigorously defending our interests in this matter.