Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

13. Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty Liabilities

The Company provides a limited warranty on most of the products it sells. The estimated warranty costs, which are expensed at the time of sale and included in cost of revenues, are based on the results of product testing, industry and historical trends and warranty claim rates incurred, and are adjusted for any current or expected trends as appropriate. Actual warranty claim costs could differ from these estimates. The Company regularly assesses and adjusts the estimate of accrued warranty claims by updating claims rates for actual trends and projected claim costs.  The Company classifies estimated warranty costs expected to be paid beyond a year as a long-term liability.

The Company had the following activity for warranty liabilities (in thousands):

	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2022			2021			2022			2021
Balance at beginning of period	$	16,368		$	9,375		$	15,013		$	8,397
Additions charged to expense for current period sales		2,173			2,526			4,336			4,198
Deduction from reserves for current period claims		(832	)		(623	)		(1,640	)		(1,317	)
Balance at end of period	$	17,709		$	11,278		$	17,709		$	11,278

Required Member Distributions

Prior to the Business Combination and pursuant to the then applicable First Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “First Purple LLC Agreement”), Purple LLC was required to distribute to its members an amount equal to 45 percent of Purple LLC’s net taxable income following the end of each fiscal year. The First Purple LLC Agreement was amended and replaced by the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Second Purple LLC Agreement”) on February 2, 2018 as part of the Business Combination. The Second Purple LLC Agreement was amended and replaced by the Third Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Third Purple LLC Agreement”) on September 3, 2020. The Second Purple LLC Agreement and the Third Purple LLC Agreement do not include any mandatory distributions, other than tax distributions. During the six months ended June 30, 2021, the Company paid $0.9 million in tax distributions under the Third Purple LLC Agreement. There were no tax distributions paid during the six months ended June 30, 2022. At June 30, 2022, the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet had $0.1 million of accrued tax distributions included in other current liabilities.

Subscription Agreement and Preemptive Rights

In February 2018, in connection with the Business Combination, the Company entered into a subscription agreement with Coliseum Capital Partners (“CCP”) and Blackwell Partners LLC – Series A (“Blackwell”), pursuant to which CCP and Blackwell agreed to purchase from the Company an aggregate of 4.0 million shares of Class A Stock at a purchase price of $10.00 per share (the “Coliseum Private Placement”). In connection with the Coliseum Private Placement, the Sponsor assigned (i) an aggregate of 1.3 million additional shares of Class A common stock to CCP and Blackwell and (ii) an aggregate of 3.3 million warrants to purchase 1.6 million shares of Class A common stock to CCP, Blackwell, and Coliseum Co-Invest Debt Fund, L.P. (“CDF”). The subscription agreement provides CCP and Blackwell with preemptive rights with respect to future sales of the Company’s securities. It also provides them with a right of first refusal with respect to certain debt and preferred equity financings by the Company. The Company also entered into a registration rights agreement with CCP, Blackwell, and CDF, providing for the registration of the shares of Class A common stock issued and assigned to CCP and Blackwell in the Coliseum Private Placement, as well as the shares of Class A common stock underlying the warrants received by CCP, Blackwell and CDF. The Company has filed a registration statement with respect to such securities.

Rights of Securities Holders

The holders of certain warrants exercisable into Class A common stock, including CCP, Blackwell and CDF, were entitled to registration rights pursuant to certain registration rights agreements of the Company as of the Business Combination date. In March 2018, the Company filed a registration statement registering these warrants (and any shares of Class A common stock issuable upon the exercise of the warrants), and certain unregistered shares of Class A common stock. The registration statement was declared effective on April 3, 2018. Under the Registration Rights Agreement dated February 2, 2018 between the Company and CCP, Blackwell, and CDF (the “Coliseum Investors”), the Coliseum Investors have the right to make written demands for up to three registrations of certain warrants and shares of Class A common stock held by them, including in underwritten offerings. In an underwritten offering of such warrants and shares of Class A common stock by the Coliseum Investors, the Company will pay underwriting discounts and commissions and certain expenses incurred by the Coliseum Investors.

On May 21, 2021, 7.3 million shares of Class A common stock were sold in a secondary offering by the Coliseum Investors at a price of $30.00 per share. The Company did not receive any of the proceeds from the secondary offering. The underwriting discount, commission and other related costs incurred by the Company for the secondary offering totaled $7.9 million and was recorded in May 2021 as general and administrative expense.

Purple LLC Class B Unit Exchange Right

On February 2, 2018, in connection with the closing of the Business Combination, the Company entered into an exchange agreement with Purple LLC and InnoHold and Class B Unit holders who become a party thereto (the “Exchange Agreement”), which provides for the exchange of Purple LLC Class B Units (the “Class B Units”) and shares of Class B common stock (together with an equal number of Class B Units, the “Paired Securities”) for, at the Company’s option, either (A) shares of Class A common stock at an initial exchange ratio equal to one Paired Security for one share of Class A common stock or (B) a cash payment equal to the product of the average of the volume-weighted closing price of one share of Class A common stock for the ten trading days immediately prior to the date InnoHold or other Class B Unit holders deliver a notice of exchange multiplied by the number of Paired Securities being exchanged. In December 2018, InnoHold distributed Paired Securities to Terry Pearce and Tony Pearce who agreed to become parties to the Exchange Agreement. In June 2019, InnoHold distributed Paired Securities to certain current and former employees who also agreed to become parties to the exchange agreement. Holders of Class B Units may elect to exchange all or any portion of their Paired Securities as described above by delivering a notice to Purple LLC.

In certain cases, adjustments to the exchange ratio will occur in case of a split, reclassification, recapitalization, subdivision or similar transaction of or relating to the Class B Units or the shares of Class A common stock and Class B common stock or a transaction in which the Class A common stock is exchanged or converted into other securities or property. The exchange ratio will also adjust in certain circumstances when the Company acquires Class B Units other than through an exchange for its shares of Class A common stock.

The right of a holder of Paired Securities to exchange may be limited by the Company if it reasonably determines in good faith that such restrictions are required by applicable law (including securities laws), such exchange would not be permitted under other agreements of such holder with the Company or its subsidiaries, including the Third Purple LLC Agreement, or if such exchange would cause Purple LLC to be treated as a “publicly traded partnership” under applicable tax laws.

The Company and each holder of Paired Securities shall bear its own expense regarding the exchange except that the Company shall be responsible for transfer taxes, stamp taxes and similar duties.

There were no Paired Securities exchanged for Class A common stock during the six months ended June 30, 2022. During the six months ended June 30, 2021, 0.1 million of Paired Securities were exchanged for shares of Class A common stock.

Maintenance of One-to-One Ratios

The Third Purple LLC Agreement includes provisions intended to ensure that the Company at all times maintains a one-to-one ratio between (a) (i) the number of outstanding shares of Class A common stock and (ii) the number of Class A Units owned by the Company (subject to certain exceptions for certain rights to purchase equity securities of the Company under a “poison pill” or similar stockholder rights plan, if any, certain convertible or exchangeable securities issued under the Company’s equity compensation plan and certain equity securities issued pursuant to the Company’s equity compensation plan (other than a stock option plan) that are restricted or have not vested thereunder) and (b) (i) the number of other outstanding equity securities of the Company (including the warrants exercisable for shares of Class A common stock) and (ii) the number of corresponding outstanding equity securities of Purple LLC. These provisions are intended to result in non-controlling interest holders having a voting interest in the Company that is identical to their economic interest in Purple LLC.

Non-Income Related Taxes

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No.17-494, reversed a longstanding precedent that remote sellers are not required to collect state and local sales taxes. The Company cannot predict the effect of these and other attempts to impose sales, income or other taxes on e-commerce. The Company currently collects and reports on sales tax in all states in which it does business. However, the application of existing, new or revised taxes on the Company’s business, in particular, sales taxes, VAT and similar taxes would likely increase the cost of doing business online and decrease the attractiveness of selling products over the internet. The application of these taxes on the Company’s business could also create significant increases in internal costs necessary to capture data and collect and remit taxes. There have been, and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs associated with complying with the various indirect tax requirements in the numerous markets in which the Company conducts or will conduct business.

Legal Proceedings

On September 9, 2019, Purple LLC filed a Statement of Claim against PerfectSense Home Inc. and PerfectSense Trading Co. Ltd. (collectively, “PerfectSense”) in the Federal Court of Canada. PerfectSense is a manufacturer and supplier of mattresses and related products. PerfectSense owns the domain name www.purplesleep.ca, which used to, but no longer, redirects to its website at www.perfectsense.ca. In addition to this, Purple LLC has alleged that PerfectSense has designed their mattresses with the same look as the Purple mattresses (white mattress top, purple stripe, and grey bottom); used many of the marketing elements on Purple’s website (including a similar “exploded view” image of their mattress); and adopted the color purple as their dominant marketing color. Purple LLC is suing for a declaration that PerfectSense has infringed Purple LLC’s copyright and trademark rights and committed the tort of passing off. Purple LLC is asking for injunctive relief, damages, an accounting of profits, interest, costs, and delivery up or destruction of the infringing products (including delivery up of the www.purplesleep.ca domain). After filing the statement of claim, Purple LLC posted $15,000 CAD as security for PerfectSense’s costs. PerfectSense brought a motion to strike that was resolved on consent. Pleadings are now closed, and the action is proceeding under case management. Counsel for the defendant was removed from the record at their own request by Court Order. The Court further ordered the defendant to either appoint counsel or file a motion to permit an officer or director to represent the defendant in legal proceedings. On November 6, 2020, the defendant informally requested that the Court permit Mr. Henderson, the CEO and shareholder of the defendant, to represent the defendant in the action until such time as a lawyer could be appointed. Purple opposed this informal request, and it was denied by the Court. After granting PerfectSense a final extension of time to either appoint counsel or file a motion to permit Mr. Henderson to represent the defendant, PerfectSense appointed new counsel. The parties engaged in litigation discovery, exchanged affidavits of documents and scheduled examinations for discovery. Shortly thereafter, discovery adjourned and continues to be stayed while the parties negotiate formal terms of settlement. PerfectSense has not responded to Purple’s repeated attempts to finalize the settlement. Purple filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement.  The Court has directed the motion be heard before a Judge, which will likely take place in September of 2022. 

On September 20, 2020, Purple LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking to recover approximately $7.0 million of Section 301 duties paid at the time of importation on certain Chinese-origin goods. More than 4,000 other complaints have been filed by other companies seeking similar refunds. On March 12, 2021 the United States filed a master answer that applies to all the Section 301 cases, including Purple LLC’s. On July 6, 2021, the court granted a preliminary injunction against liquidation of any unliquidated entries. On April 1, 2022, the court issued an opinion that remanded the case back to the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) to address certain procedural flaws in USTR’s process for determining whether certain products were subject to the Section 301 duties. On August 1, 2022, USTR issued its remand results. The court has not yet established a briefing schedule for comments on the remand results. If successful, this litigation could result in a refund of some or all of the Section 301 duties.

On October 13, 2020, Purple LLC filed a lawsuit against Responsive Surface Technology, LLC and its parent company, PatienTech, LLC (collectively referred to as “ReST”) in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The lawsuit arises from ReST’s multiple breaches of its obligations to Purple LLC, including infringing upon Purple LLC’s trademarks, patents, and trade dress, among other claims. Purple seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment based on certain conduct by ReST (“Case I”). On October 21, 2020, shortly after the complaint was filed in Case I, ReST filed a retaliatory lawsuit against Purple LLC, Gary DiCamillo, Adam Gray, Joseph Megibow, Terry Pearce, and Tony Pearce, also in the United States District Court for the District of Utah (“Case II”). Subsequently, the two cases were consolidated into one. Case II (now combined with Case I) involves many of the same facts and transactions as Case I. On January 19, 2021, ReST filed a motion to compel arbitration of the claims in Case I. Purple LLC opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that ReST waived any rights they may have had to arbitration and that all the claims in both cases should stay in the courts. However, the Court granted ReST’s motion to compel arbitration, and stayed the proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Additionally, the Court ruled that ReST’s claims against the Purple board members were not subject to arbitration, and the Court stayed ReST’s claims against those individuals.  Pursuant to the Court’s order, Purple filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) on September 1, 2021.  ReST filed its counterclaim with the AAA on September 21, 2021.The parties have selected an arbitrator and they have agreed upon a scheduling order.  Currently, the parties are in the fact discovery phase of the arbitration. The parties have scheduled several depositions and exchange documents and discovery requests. The arbitration hearing is set to begin on April 17, 2023, and it will continue through April 28, 2023. Purple LLC seeks over $4 million in damages from ReST, whereas ReST claims that Purple is liable to it for tens of millions of dollars. The outcome of this litigation cannot be predicted at this stage. However, Purple intends to vigorously pursue its claims and defend against the claims made by ReST.

On November 19, 2020, Purple LLC sued Advanced Comfort Technologies, Inc., dba Intellibed (“Intellibed”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for patent infringement, trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and a number of related state law based claims. The principal allegations are that Intellibed has manufactured and sold unauthorized, infringing products under the Sleepy’s brand name owned by third-party Mattress Firm. Purple LLC also requested declaratory relief related to certain assignment terms of a license agreement in which Purple LLC is the licensor and Intellibed is the licensee. On December 14, 2020, Intellibed filed a motion to dismiss Counts I through XI of Purple LLC’s Complaint on the ground that these Counts fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On December 15, 2020, Intellibed filed an Answer to Purple LLC’s complaint and also asserted against Purple LLC a total of eight counterclaims, including a number of declaratory judgment claims, breach of contract, and tortious interference claims. Intellibed’s main allegations are that its use of Purple LLC’s patents, trademark, and trade secrets in connection with Mattress Firm’s Sleepy’s products is authorized under the license agreement. On January 19, 2021, Purple LLC filed a motion to dismiss Intellibed’s fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth counterclaims on the ground that these counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Briefing on Purple LLC’s partial motion to dismiss was completed on March 2, 2021. On January 19, 2021, Purple LLC also filed an Answer to Intellibed’s counterclaims, which were not subject to Purple LLC’s motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2021, Purple LLC filed a First Amended Complaint in response to Intellibed’s initial motion to dismiss. On February 10, 2021, Intellibed filed a motion to dismiss Counts I through XI of Purple LLC’s First Amended Complaint. Briefing on Intellibed’s partial motion to dismiss was completed on March 24, 2021. On September 28, 2021, the District Court dismissed Purple’s complaint without prejudice, and also dismissed ACTI’s counterclaim without prejudice, while the parties pursued dispute-resolution procedures set out in the license agreement.  Because the Court found that the license agreement required the parties to follow the contractual dispute-resolution procedures prior to filing a lawsuit, Purple initiated those procedures in accordance with the license agreement and intends to continue to vigorously pursue its claims.

On June 8, 2021, Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC (“SSB”) filed a Complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Case No. 21-A-04413-1 (the “Georgia Litigation”). SSB’s Complaint alleges that the Company intentionally interfered with SSB’s business and contractual relations and violated the Georgia Trade Secrets Act by hiring one of SSB’s former employees in the face of an allegedly valid 2015 noncompete agreement. SSB seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint. SSB also initiated arbitration proceedings against its former employee who Purple LLC has agreed to indemnify, subject to certain conditions.  On July 12, 2021, the Company filed an Answer to SSB’s Complaint in the Georgia Litigation, denying all allegations of unlawful conduct, and further moved to dismiss the Georgia Litigation on the grounds that Georgia is an inconvenient forum and the parties’ dispute should instead be litigated in Utah.   On July 9, 2021, the Company filed its own Complaint in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, Utah, Case No. 21040011 (the “Utah Litigation”), seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that the arbitration clause in the former employee’s 2015 noncompete agreement is unenforceable, (2) a declaratory judgment that the restrictive covenants in the former employee’s 2015 noncompete agreement are unenforceable, and (3) an order enjoining arbitration proceedings initiated by SSB and currently pending against the former employee.  The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on these claims on August 16, 2021. SSB filed an Answer on August 18, 2021. After attending a mediation, the parties entered in a settlement agreement on December 31, 2021 resolving all claims in the Georgia Litigation and Utah Litigation.  The Company did not pay any monetary consideration to SSB in connection with the settlement agreement. On January 12, 2022, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, SSB dismissed the Georgia Litigation without prejudice and the Company dismissed the Utah Litigation without prejudice. 

On May 3, 2022, the Company filed a Complaint against Photon Interactive UK Limited (“Photon”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware regarding a Master Professional Services Agreement with Photon dated on or around November 1, 2019. Pursuant to the agreement, Photon was required to rebuild Purple’s website architecture and checkout process. Purple paid Photon $0.9 million under the Agreement. However, Photon failed to deliver any of the required deliverables as specified in the agreement. Purple withheld payment of the final $0.1 million due pursuant to Photon’s invoices pending a resolution with Photon. Since resolution discussions with Photon have failed, Purple filed the aforementioned complaint for breach of contract against Photon seeking, among other damages, reimbursement for all amounts paid to under the agreement. It is anticipated that Photon will counter-sue for amounts they claim are owed. 

The Company is from time to time involved in various other claims, legal proceedings and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that adverse decisions in any such pending or threatened proceedings, or any amount that the Company might be required to pay by reason thereof, would have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or future results of the Company.