Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events	Note 8. Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events Financial Condition and Liquidity As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a Credit Agreement with EnCap and a Purchase Agreement with RCA. The willingness of RCA to purchase our accounts receivable under the Purchase Agreement, and our ability to obtain additional financing, may be limited due to various factors, including the eligibility of our receivables, the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by EnCap, RCA, or other potential sources of financing. If we are unable to maintain the Purchase Agreement, we would need to obtain additional credit to fund our future operations. If credit is available in that event, lenders may impose more restrictive terms and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to maintain, extend, renew or replace the Purchase Agreement with a comparable arrangement or arrangements that provide similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results. While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact our availability under our credit arrangements. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize cash resources without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our cash resources without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on our cash resources, our financing arrangements, and therefore our liquidity. Management may determine that, in order to reduce capital and liquidity requirements, planned spending on capital projects and indirect expense growth may be curtailed, subject to growth in operating results. Additionally, management may seek to put in place a credit facility with a commercial bank, although no assurance can be given that such a facility could be put in place under terms acceptable to the Company. Should management determine that additional capital is required, management would likely look first to the sources of funding discussed above to meet any requirements, although no assurances can be given that these investors would be able to invest or that the Company and the investors would agree upon terms for such investments. Our working capital was $3.9 million and $2.1 million as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that our financing arrangements with EnCap and RCA, collectively, and funds generated from operations are sufficient to maintain the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs for the next 12 months. Legal Proceedings Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. and Wynnefield Partners Small Cap Value, L.P.v. Telos Corporation, et al. As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of our Public Preferred Stock, instituted litigation against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers ("Telos Defendants") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Circuit Court”). A second holder of the Company’s Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. (“Wynnefield”), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R.C. Porter, a holder of the Company’s Class A common stock. As of September 30, 2019, Costa Brava and Wynnefield, directly and through affiliated funds, own 12.7% and 17.4%, respectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. There have been no material developments in this litigation during the three months ended September 30, 2019, and the matter remains pending. At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs’ success in relation to any of their assertions in the litigation. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case, the Company and its present and former officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and continue to vigorously defend the matter and oppose all relief sought by Plaintiffs. Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, since August 2, 2007, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot (“Hamot”) and Andrew R. Siegel (“Siegel”), principals of Costa Brava, have been involved in litigation against the Company as Plaintiffs and Counter-defendants in the Circuit Court. Mr. Siegel is a Class D Director of the Company and Mr. Hamot was a Class D Director of the Company until his resignation on March 9, 2018. On or about July 6, 2018, the attorneys representing Mr. Hamot filed a Notice of Substitution of Party in the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals, providing notice that Mr. Steven Tannenbaum was appointed and qualified as the Special Personal Representative of the Estate of Seth Hamot to represent the estate in the litigation. The Plaintiffs initially alleged that certain documents and records had not been provided to them promptly and were necessary to fulfill their duties as directors of the Company. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs further alleged that the Company had failed to follow certain provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes and, additionally, that Mr. Wood’s service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company’s Bylaws. Oral argument was held in the Court of Appeals of Maryland on September 10, 2019 on issues related to the damages awarded to the Company and against Mssrs. Hamot and Siegel on its Counterclaim for interference with one of its prior auditor relationships. On October 11, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued its Mandate with respect to its September 13, 2019 per curiam order which dismissed the appeal with costs. Counsel for Mr. Hamot’s estate and Mr. Siegel have previously sought indemnification for a portion of their attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this litigation. The parties are currently discussing the possibility of submitting issues related to indemnification to non-binding alternative dispute resolution before a third party neutral, or mediation, in an attempt to resolve these issues. In the event that disputes pertaining to indemnification cannot be amicably resolved, these matters would be addressed by the circuit court. At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Company’s success in relation to the threatened claim for indemnification, and in the event the issue cannot be resolved through mediation the Company intends to vigorously defend the matter and oppose the relief sought. Other Litigation In addition, from time to time the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 8. Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events

Financial Condition and Liquidity

As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a Credit Agreement with EnCap and a Purchase Agreement with RCA. The willingness of RCA to purchase our accounts receivable under the Purchase Agreement, and our ability to obtain additional financing, may be limited due to various factors, including the eligibility of our receivables, the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by EnCap, RCA, or other potential sources of financing. If we are unable to maintain the Purchase Agreement, we would need to obtain additional credit to fund our future operations. If credit is available in that event, lenders may impose more restrictive terms and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to maintain, extend, renew or replace the Purchase Agreement with a comparable arrangement or arrangements that provide similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results.

While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact our availability under our credit arrangements. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize cash resources without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our cash resources without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on our cash resources, our financing arrangements, and therefore our liquidity.

Management may determine that, in order to reduce capital and liquidity requirements, planned spending on capital projects and indirect expense growth may be curtailed, subject to growth in operating results. Additionally, management may seek to put in place a credit facility with a commercial bank, although no assurance can be given that such a facility could be put in place under terms acceptable to the Company. Should management determine that additional capital is required, management would likely look first to the sources of funding discussed above to meet any requirements, although no assurances can be given that these investors would be able to invest or that the Company and the investors would agree upon terms for such investments.

Our working capital was $3.9 million and $2.1 million as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that our financing arrangements with EnCap and RCA, collectively, and funds generated from operations are sufficient to maintain the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs for the next 12 months.

Legal Proceedings

Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. and Wynnefield Partners Small Cap Value, L.P.v. Telos Corporation, et al.

As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of our Public Preferred Stock, instituted litigation against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers ("Telos Defendants") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Circuit Court”). A second holder of the Company’s Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. (“Wynnefield”), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R.C. Porter, a holder of the Company’s Class A common stock. As of September 30, 2019, Costa Brava and Wynnefield, directly and through affiliated funds, own 12.7% and 17.4%, respectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. There have been no material developments in this litigation during the three months ended September 30, 2019, and the matter remains pending.

At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs’ success in relation to any of their assertions in the litigation. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case, the Company and its present and former officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and continue to vigorously defend the matter and oppose all relief sought by Plaintiffs.

Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation

As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, since August 2, 2007, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot (“Hamot”) and Andrew R. Siegel (“Siegel”), principals of Costa Brava, have been involved in litigation against the Company as Plaintiffs and Counter-defendants in the Circuit Court. Mr. Siegel is a Class D Director of the Company and Mr. Hamot was a Class D Director of the Company until his resignation on March 9, 2018. On or about July 6, 2018, the attorneys representing Mr. Hamot filed a Notice of Substitution of Party in the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals, providing notice that Mr. Steven Tannenbaum was appointed and qualified as the Special Personal Representative of the Estate of Seth Hamot to represent the estate in the litigation.

The Plaintiffs initially alleged that certain documents and records had not been provided to them promptly and were necessary to fulfill their duties as directors of the Company. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs further alleged that the Company had failed to follow certain provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes and, additionally, that Mr. Wood’s service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company’s Bylaws.

Oral argument was held in the Court of Appeals of Maryland on September 10, 2019 on issues related to the damages awarded to the Company and against Mssrs. Hamot and Siegel on its Counterclaim for interference with one of its prior auditor relationships. On October 11, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued its Mandate with respect to its September 13, 2019 per curiam order which dismissed the appeal with costs. Counsel for Mr. Hamot’s estate and Mr. Siegel have previously sought indemnification for a portion of their attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this litigation. The parties are currently discussing the possibility of submitting issues related to indemnification to non-binding alternative dispute resolution before a third party neutral, or mediation, in an attempt to resolve these issues. In the event that disputes pertaining to indemnification cannot be amicably resolved, these matters would be addressed by the circuit court.

At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Company’s success in relation to the threatened claim for indemnification, and in the event the issue cannot be resolved through mediation the Company intends to vigorously defend the matter and oppose the relief sought.

Other Litigation

In addition, from time to time the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.