Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies — On February 22, 2021, Christine Marie Teifke, a purported purchaser of Ebix securities, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Teifke v. Ebix, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01589-JMF, on behalf of herself and others who purchased or acquired Ebix securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021. The complaint asserts claims against the Company, Robin Raina, and Steven M. Hamil, for purported violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Ebix made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about an audit of the company's gift card business in India and its internal controls over the gift and prepaid card revenue transaction cycle. The complaint alleges that Ebix's stock price fell as a result of the revelation that Ebix's independent auditor, RSM US LLP (“RSM”), had resigned, citing concerns with the company's internal controls and disagreements over other accounting issues. The complaint also asserts a claim against Robin Raina and Steven M. Hamil for purported violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of the same facts. The complaint seeks, among other relief, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 11, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Rahul Saraf, another purported purchaser of Ebix, Inc. securities, as lead plaintiff in the action, and the caption in the action was changed to Saraf v. Ebix, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01589-JMF (the "Class Action").

On May 14, 2021, Javier Calvo, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Ebix captioned Calvo v. Raina, et. al., Case No. 21-cv-4380-JMF (the "Calvo Action"), against individual defendants Robin Raina, Steven M Hamil, Hans U. Benz, Rolf Herter, Neil D.

Eckert, Pavan Bhalla, Hans Ueli Keller, and George W. Hebard, and nominal defendant Ebix asserting claims related to the RSM resignation. The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty against all of the individual defendants, and also asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for contribution against Robin Raina and Steven M Hamil. On July 7, 2021, the court granted a stipulation and order staying the Calvo Action pending the resolution of any motion(s) to dismiss the Class Action.

On July 13, 2021, Peter Votto, another purported Ebix shareholder, filed an additional derivative action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Ebix, captioned Votto v. Raina, et. al., Case No. 21-cv-5982-JMF (the "Votto Action"), asserting claims against the same defendants as the Calvo Action. The complaint asserts claims relating to the RSM resignation against all of the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and rescission under Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and claims for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Robin Raina and Steven M Hamil. On July 23, 2021, the court granted a stipulation and order consolidating the Calvo and Votto Actions. The July 7, 2021 order staying the Calvo Action pending the resolution of any motion(s) to dismiss the Class Action remains in effect for the consolidated Calvo and Votto Actions. On July 26, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Class Action, alleging similar violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On September 24, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and opening brief in support thereof. On October 15, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in the Class Action. Defendants intend to move to dismiss the second amended complaint and briefing on Defendants’ motion is scheduled to conclude on November 19, 2021. Defendants deny any liability and intend to defend the action vigorously.

On July 16, 2019, Yatra Online, Inc. ("Yatra"), Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix"), and EbixCash Travels, Inc. ("Merger Sub") entered into a Merger Agreement. On May 14, 2020, Yatra entered into an agreement with Ebix and Merger Sub extending the outside date of the Merger Agreement (the "Extension Agreement"). On June 5, 2020, Yatra terminated the Merger Agreement and filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Ebix and Merger Sub (the "Complaint"). On September 25, 2020, Yatra amended the Complaint and added as a defendant each financial institution (each, a “Defendant Lender”) party to that certain credit facility between them and Ebix, most recently amended on May 7, 2020 (the “Credit Facility”). The Complaint, as amended, alleged that Ebix and Merger Sub breached certain representations, warranties, and covenants contained in the Merger Agreement and the Extension Agreement and that Ebix negotiated in bad faith. The amended Complaint also alleged fraudulent actions by Ebix and the Defendant Lenders arising from certain terms of the Credit Facility and tortious interference with the closing of the Merger Agreement by Ebix and the Defendant Lenders. The Complaint sought, among other relief, damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 23, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended Complaint and opening briefs in support thereof. Briefing on defendants' motions to dismiss concluded on February 9, 2021. On August 30, 2021, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended Complaint in its entirety ("the Dismissal"). On September 17, 2021, Yatra filed a notice of appeal of the Dismissal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Ebix and Merger Sub deny any liability and intend to defend the action vigorously.

On May 12, 2017, Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd. (“Ebixcash”) entered into several agreements with the most prominent shareholders of Itz Cash Card Limited (“Itz”), the most relevant among these a stock purchase agreement (the “SPA”), to purchase a majority ownership stake in Itz. Further, as part of the overall purchase of Itz, a share purchase agreement between Ebixcash and individual ESOP holders of Itz was entered into on July 7, 2017 (the “ESOP SPA”) (with the SPA, the ESOP SPA and the other purchase documents, collectively, the “Transaction Documents”). Part of the consideration for Ebixcash’s purchase of Itz consisted of two individual potential earn-out payments, the first for the year ended March 31, 2019 (the “First Earn-Out”) and the second for the following year, ending on March 31, 2020 (the “Second Earn-Out”). Neither the First Earn-Out nor the Second Earn-Out were achieved pursuant to the terms of the SPA. After correspondence between the parties between September 2019 and May 2020, the former shareholders of Itz (“Sellers”) sent Ebixcash notices of arbitration (“NOAs”) under which they were availing themselves of the arbitration dispute provisions set forth in the Transaction Documents. Apart from the amounts claimed owed under the earn-out provisions, the Sellers also alleged in the NOAs other violations of the terms of the Transaction Documents, including, certain non-competition and restricted matter approval violations. The matter is under arbitration in accordance with the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The Company believes that each of the Sellers claims is without merit and continues to defend its position vigorously. The Company believes that Ebixcash has several viable counterclaims related to improper termination of the Transaction Documents and violation of non-compete provisions.

The Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, which in the opinion of management, the ultimate likely disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.