Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Shareholder Lawsuits: Weiner Lawsuit, Consolidated Derivative Lawsuit, and Witmer Lawsuit

On November 6, 2017, United Healthcare issued a press release announcing expansion of its fitness benefits (“United Press Release”), and the market price of the Company's shares of common stock, par value $.001 per

share (“Common Stock”) dropped on that same day. In connection with the United Press Release, four lawsuits were filed against the Company. As further described below, three of the four lawsuits have been dismissed.  We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome of the remaining matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any.  We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the remaining complaint.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3, 2017 (“Weiner Lawsuit”).  The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press Release.  The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.  On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and established certain deadlines for the case.  On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.   The Court denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019 and the Company’s Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019. On January 29, 2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff’s motion to certify the class. On July 23, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Company’s application for permission to appeal the class certification ruling.  The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.

On January 26, 2018 and August 24, 2018, individuals claiming to be stockholders of the Company filed shareholder derivative actions, on behalf of the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the Company as a nominal defendant and certain current and former executives and directors as defendants.  On October 15, 2018, the two complaints were consolidated (the “Consolidated Derivative Lawsuit”).  On May 15, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b), 14(a), and 29(b) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the Company, certain corporate governance and internal procedural reforms, and other equitable relief. On June 14, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims and the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2019. On October 22, 2019, the Consolidated Derivative Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. On November 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit.  The parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to resolve the Consolidated Derivative Lawsuit, and on May 19, 2020, the case was remanded to the District Court to review for approval a forthcoming stipulation of settlement based on the terms set forth in the MOU.

Shareholder Lawsuits: Strougo, Cobb, and Delaware Lawsuits

On February 25, 2020, Robert Strougo, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased Common Stock between March 8, 2019 and February 19, 2020 (the "Strougo Lawsuit").  The Strougo Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the Company, the Company's chief financial officer and former chief executive officer as defendants.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the performance of the Nutrisystem business that the Company acquired on March 8, 2019.  The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.  Three parties have filed a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and counsel, but the Court has not ruled on those motions.  Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of the case, we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any.

On April 9, 2020, John Cobb, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee naming the Company as a nominal defendant and certain directors and the Company’s former chief executive officer and current chief financial officer as defendants (the “Cobb Lawsuit”). The complaint asserted claims for breach of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, failure of internal controls, and unjust enrichment, largely tracking the factual allegations in the Strougo Lawsuit. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages on behalf of the Company, restitution, and certain corporate governance and internal procedural reforms. On June 9, 2020, the United States Magistrate Judge approved the parties’ stipulation to a stay the case pending the resolution of defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss in the Strougo case.  Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of the case, we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any.  

In July 2020, three putative derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by the following individuals claiming to be stockholders of the Company: Patrick Yerby, Thomas R. Conte, Melvyn Klein, and Mark Ridendour (the “Delaware Derivative Lawsuits”).  The complaints largely track the allegations, named defendants, asserted claims, and requested relief of the Cobb Lawsuit.  Once the Delaware Derivative Lawsuits are consolidated by the District Court, the Company intends to seek a stay similar to that entered in the Cobb Lawsuit.

Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of the case, we are not currently able to predict the probable outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any.  We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the Strougo Lawsuit, Cobb Lawsuit, and Delaware Derivative Lawsuit.

Trademark Lawsuit: Pacific Packaging Lawsuit

On May 31, 2019, Pacific Packaging Concepts, Inc. (“Pacific Packaging”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, naming as defendants two subsidiaries of the Company; Nutrisystem, Inc. and Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. In its complaint, Pacific Packaging alleged that the defendants’ use of Pacific Packaging’s federally registered trademark, Fresh Start, in advertisements for its weight management program and shakes constitutes federal trademark infringement, counterfeit trademark infringement, false designation of origin, federal trademark dilution, unfair competition, false advertising, common law unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  On August 29, 2019, the defendants filed their Answer to Complaint. Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of the case, we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this complaint.

Other

Additionally, from time to time, we are subject to contractual disputes, claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business.  Some of the legal proceedings pending against us as of the date of this report are expected to be covered by insurance policies.  As these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, our view of these matters may change in the future.  We expense legal costs as incurred.