Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Leases

Our principal lease commitments are for office space and operations under several noncancelable operating leases with contractual terms expiring from 2021 to 2031. Some of these leases contain renewal options and rent escalations.

In 2019, we entered into an agreement to lease space for our corporate headquarters in Los Angeles, which we occupied under a sublease with a third party. The new lease commenced in July 2020 upon the expiration of the sublease and is for a term of approximately seven years. We have $2.0 million in cash collateralized letters of credit related to the lease and sublease as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Yandy’s operating lease for warehousing and office space in Phoenix, Arizona expired in February 2021, following an extension of the original December 2020 expiration. On August 26, 2020, we entered into a non-cancellable operating lease for 51,962 square feet of warehousing and office space in Phoenix, Arizona for Yandy’s operations. The lease commenced on February 1, 2021 and expires on May 31, 2031, with an option to renew for an additional five or 10 years at market rates. Rent, which commenced in June 2021, is payable monthly and is subject to annual increases of 3% for a total lease commitment of $4.1 million. Additionally, we are eligible to receive a tenant improvement allowance of up to $0.8 million.

In 2017, we vacated our New York office space and entered into an agreement to sublease the space for a period approximating the remaining term of our lease. This lease expires in 2024.

In connection with the acquisition of TLA, as disclosed in Note 17, Business Combinations, we acquired 41 retail stores (40 stores as of December 31, 2021), one office and one warehouse space, which TLA leases and operates in Washington, Oregon, California, Texas and Tennessee for the purpose of selling its products to customers. The majority of the leases are triple net leases, for which TLA, as a lessee, is responsible for paying rent as well as common area maintenance, insurance and taxes. Lease terms run between 2 and 10 years in length, with the average lease term being approximately 5 years and in many cases include renewal options.

In connection with the acquisition of Honey Birdette, as disclosed in Note 17, Business Combinations, we acquired 59 retail stores and two office spaces, which Honey Birdette leases and operates in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom for the purpose of selling its products to customers. The majority of the leases are triple net leases, for which Honey Birdette, as a lessee, is responsible for paying rent as well as common area maintenance, insurance and taxes. Lease terms run between 2 and 10 years in length, with the average lease term being approximately 5 years and in many cases include renewal options.

Lease cost associated with operating leases is charged to expense in the year incurred and is included in our consolidated statements of operations. For the year ended December 31, 2020, lease cost charged to selling, general and administrative expense was $3.1 million. Lease cost for the year ended December 31, 2021 is included in the table below. Lease cost charged to cost of sales for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 was immaterial. Most of our leases include one or more options to renew, with renewal terms that generally can extend the lease term for an additional 4 to 5 years. The exercise of lease renewal options is at our sole discretion.

As of December 31, 2021 the weighted average remaining term of these operating leases is 5.4 years and the weighted average discount rate used to estimate the net present value of the operating lease liabilities was 4.9%. Cash payments for amounts included in the measurement of operating lease liabilities were $7.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. Right of use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities were $3.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021.

Net lease cost recognized in our consolidated statements of operations as of December 31, 2021 is summarized as follows (in thousands):


	Year Ended December 31, 2021
Operating lease cost	$	9,099
Variable lease cost	1,370
Short-term lease cost	674
Sublease income	(368)
Net lease cost	$	10,775

Maturities of our operating lease liabilities as of December 31, 2021 are as follows (in thousands):


Years ending December 31:	Amounts
2022	$	11,447
2023	9,894
2024	8,314
2025	6,588
2026	6,131
Thereafter	7,393
Total undiscounted lease payments	49,767
Less: imputed interest	(4,536)
Total operating lease liabilities	$	45,231
Operating lease liabilities, current portion	9,697
Operating lease liabilities, noncurrent portion	$	35,534

The following table sets forth the future minimum lease commitments and future sublease income as of December 31, 2020, under operating leases with initial or remaining noncancelable terms in excess of one year prior to the adoption of ASC 842 on January 1, 2021 (in thousands):


	Minimum Lease Commitments		Sublease Income
2021	$	3,433	$	(288)
2022	3,451		(313)
2023	3,564		(322)
2024	3,828		(246)
2025	3,588		—
Thereafter	7,553		—
Total	$	25,417	$	(1,169)

Legal Contingencies

From time to time, we may have certain contingent liabilities that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. We accrue a liability for such matters when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and that such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount.

TNR Case

On December 17, 2021, Thai Nippon Rubber Industry Public Limited Company, a manufacturer of condoms and lubricants and a publicly traded Thailand company (“TNR”), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Playboy and its subsidiary Products Licensing, LLC. TNR alleges a variety of claims relating to Playboy’s termination of a license agreement with TNR and the business relationship between Playboy and TNR prior to such termination. TNR alleges, among other things, breach of contract, unfair competition, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and interference with contractual and business relations due to Playboy’s conduct. TNR is seeking over $100 million in damages arising from the loss of expected profits, declines in the value of TNR’s business, unsalable inventory and investment losses. Playboy believes TNR’s claims and allegations are without merit, and Playboy will defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Dream Case

On December 7, 2021, Steve Shaw, a former consultant to GlowUp Digital, Inc. (a/k/a “Dream” and subsequently renamed Centerfold Digital Inc.), the company acquired by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, brought suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against Michael Dow and Michael Berman (the principals of Dream), Centerfold Digital Inc. and Playboy. Mr. Shaw alleges a variety of claims, based upon an alleged (unsigned) agreement with Dream that Mr. Shaw was to be granted up to 20% of the equity of Dream (valued at $6 million based on the $30 million purchase price in the agreement for the Company’s acquisition of Dream). Subsequent to such alleged agreement and prior to the Company’s acquisition of Dream, Dream and Mr. Shaw entered into a standard mutual release agreement pursuant to which Mr. Shaw released any claims against Dream, including any rights to equity in Dream, in exchange for a monetary payment. Mr. Shaw is alleging, among other things, breach of contract, misrepresentation and fraud in connection with his alleged agreement with Dream and the circumstances under which he entered into the release. Mr. Shaw is seeking damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Playboy believes Mr. Shaw’s claims and allegations are without merit, and Playboy will defend itself vigorously in this matter, including the assertion of its own counterclaims.

2020 Former Employee Case

On May 18, 2020, a former employee filed a complaint against us in Los Angeles County Superior Court related to the individual’s former employment with us. A settlement was reached in April 2021 for dismissal of the case upon payment to the complainant of $0.2 million, which is anticipated to be primarily covered by our employment practices liability insurance.

AVS Case

In March 2020, our subsidiary Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, “PEII”) terminated its license agreement with a licensee, AVS Products, LLC (“AVS”), for AVS’s failure to make required payments to PEII under the agreement, following notice of breach and an opportunity to cure. On February 6, 2021, PEII received a letter from counsel to AVS alleging that the termination of the contract was improper, and that PEII failed to meet its contractual obligations, preventing AVS from fulfilling its obligations under the license agreement.

On February 25, 2021, PEII brought suit against AVS in Los Angeles Superior Court to prevent further unauthorized sales of PLAYBOY branded products and for disgorgement of unlawfully obtained funds. On March 1, 2021, PEII also brought a claim in arbitration against AVS for outstanding and unpaid license fees. PEII and AVS subsequently agreed that the claims PEII brought in arbitration would be alleged in the Los Angeles Superior Court case instead, and on April 23, 2021, the parties entered into and filed a stipulation to that effect with the court. On May 18, 2021, AVS filed a demurrer, asking for the court to remove an individual defendant and dismiss PEII’s request for a permanent injunction. On June 10, 2021, the court denied AVS’s demurrer. AVS filed an opposition to PEII’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin AVS from continuing to sell or market PLAYBOY branded products on July 2, 2021, which the court denied on July 28, 2021.

On August 10, 2021, AVS filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit and declaratory relief. As in its February 2021 letter, AVS alleges its license was wrongfully terminated and that PEII failed to approve AVS’ marketing efforts in a manner that was either timely or that was commensurate with industry practice. AVS is seeking to be excused from having to perform its obligations as a licensee, payment of the value for services rendered by AVS to PEII outside of the license, and damages to be proven at trial. We believe AVS’ claims and allegations are without merit, and we will defend this matter vigorously. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The court has set a preliminary trial date of September 13, 2022.

Hefner Trust Case

On May 21, 2019, Michael Whalen, as Trustee for the Hugh M. Hefner 1991 Trust, (the “Trust”), initiated an arbitration against the Company asserting that the Company had breached that certain License Agreement between Hugh M. Hefner (“Mr. Hefner”) and the Company dated on or about March 4, 2011, wherein Mr. Hefner licensed his image, signature, voice, likeness and other elements of his persona and identity to the Company. The Trust has also asserted statutory claims against the Company for the alleged violation of Mr. Hefner’s right of publicity. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated August 21, 2020, pursuant to which the Company paid to the Trust $1.8 million to settle this matter in September 2020.

2019 Former Employee Case

On April 1, 2019, a former employee, through counsel, delivered to the Company a letter which set forth various potential claims against the Company related to the individual’s former employment with the Company. A settlement was reached in October 2020 in the amount of $2.6 million. We have employment practices liability insurance for such claims which is capped at $2.5 million. We paid $0.4 million in November 2020, representing the amount of the settlement not covered by the employment practices liability insurance and had a $0.3 million receivable from the insurance provider as of December 31, 2020, and had received such amount as of December 31, 2021.

Michigan Class Action Case

In January 2019, a class action suit was initiated against the Company on behalf of a group of Michigan Playboy magazine subscribers, where the subscribers sued after their personal details were disclosed in violation of the Michigan Preservation of Personal Privacy Act. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement which was approved, and the court entered a final judgement on August 19, 2020 in the amount of $3.9 million to be paid by the Company. The amount was paid in September 2020.

Indian Harbor Case

On October 15, 2018, Playboy filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Court”) against its insurer, Indian Harbor Insurance Company (“Indian Harbor”), captioned Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeking declaratory relief, after Indian Harbor threatened to sue Playboy on an alleged theory of lack of coverage after Indian Harbor paid approximately $4.8 million towards the settlement of claims against Playboy made by Elliot Friedman. Among other things, we are seeking declaratory relief that the underlying claims asserted against Playboy are covered claims under Playboy’s insurance policies with Indian Harbor. On December 14, 2018, Indian Harbor filed its answer to the complaint and filed counterclaims against Playboy for declaratory relief that it has no obligation to provide coverage for the underlying claims and that it is entitled to recoup the amounts it paid in the settlement, with interest. Indian Harbor filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking, among other things, summary adjudication that (1) the insurance policy does not provide coverage because the underlying claim was allegedly first made before the policy period of the policy and (2) that Indian Harbor does not have to provide coverage because Playboy allegedly failed to provide timely notice of the claim. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied Indian Harbor’s motion, in part, ruling as a matter of law that Playboy had properly reported the underlying claim under the correct policy; but granted the motion as to Playboy’s breach of contract and bad faith claims because Indian Harbor ultimately funded the settlement. Based on the summary judgment ruling, the parties agreed to enter into a stipulated judgment in Playboy’s favor to advance the issues for appeal, with Indian Harbor intending to appeal the Court’s decision as to when the underlying claim was first made. The Court entered the parties’ stipulated judgment on July 26, 2021. On October 15, 2021, Indian Harbor filed its notice of appeal. On December 13, 2021, Indian Harbor filed its opening appellate brief, and our response is due by March 29, 2022. We intend to continue to prosecute our claims in this matter and vigorously defend ourselves against Indian Harbor’s counterclaims on appeal.

We may periodically be involved in other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. These matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

COVID-19

In March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Since that time, we have focused on protecting our employees, customers and vendors to minimize potential disruptions while managing through this pandemic. Nonetheless, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt and delay global supply chains, affect production and sales across a range of industries and result in legal restrictions requiring businesses to close and consumers to stay at home for days-to-months at a time. These disruptions have impacted our business by slowing the launch of new products, causing certain products sold by Yandy to be out-of-stock, hindering new licensing and collaboration deals, temporarily closing retail stores of Honey Birdette post-acquisition and certain of our licensees and closing the London Playboy Club and certain other Playboy-branded live gaming operations. As a result, licensing revenues from certain gaming and retail licensees declined in the last three quarters of 2020 and the full year of 2021, as compared to royalties from such sources during pre-pandemic periods. However, as of the date of these consolidated financial statements, our business as a whole has not suffered any material adverse consequences to date from the COVID-19 pandemic, as negative impacts have thus far been offset by an increase in online direct-to-consumer sales and higher royalties from licensing collaborations in the United States during the years ended December 2020 and 2021. The extent of the impact of COVID-19 on our future operational and financial performance will depend on certain developments, including the further duration and spread of the outbreak and its impact on employees and vendors, all of which are uncertain and cannot be predicted. As of the date of these consolidated financial statements, the full extent to which COVID-19 may impact our future financial condition or results of operations is uncertain.