XML 21 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.21.1
CONCENTRATIONS, SIGNIFICANT CUSTOMERS, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Concentrations, Significant Customers, Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
CONCENTRATIONS, SIGNIFICANT CUSTOMERS, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES CONCENTRATIONS, SIGNIFICANT CUSTOMERS, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 
At March 31, 2021 and 2020 and for each of the three months then ended, the Company’s revenues and receivables were comprised of the following customer concentrations:
 Three Months Ended March 31, 2021Three Months Ended
March 31, 2020
% of
Revenues		% of
Receivables		% of
Revenues		% of
Receivables
Customer 127%15%47%23%
Customer 27%17%10%18%
Customer 31%4%4%11%
Customer 410%7%—%—%
For each of the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company's segment revenues were comprised of the following customer concentrations:
% of Revenue by Segment% Revenue by Segment
Three Months Ended March 31, 2021Three Months Ended March 31, 2020
Black Oil RefiningRecoveryBlack Oil RefiningRecovery
Customer 148%—%—%58%—%—%
Customer 213%—%—%13%—%—%
Customer 3—%—%9%—%—%37%
Customer 4—%30%—%—%—%—%

The Company had one and no vendors that represented 10% of total purchases or payables for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

The Company’s revenue, profitability and future rate of growth are substantially dependent on prevailing prices for petroleum-based products. Historically, the energy markets have been very volatile, and there can be no assurance that these prices will not be subject to wide fluctuations in the future. A substantial or extended decline in such prices could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, cash flows, access to capital, and the quantities of petroleum-based products that the Company can economically produce.

Litigation
The Company, in its normal course of business, is involved in various other claims and legal action. In the opinion of management, the outcome of these claims and actions will not have a material adverse impact upon the financial position of the Company. We are currently party to the following material litigation proceedings:
Vertex Refining LA, LLC ("Vertex Refining LA"), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating was named as a defendant, along with numerous other parties, in five lawsuits filed on or about February 12, 2016, in the Second Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, Case No. 121749, by Russell Doucet et. al., Case No. 121750, by Kendra Cannon et. al., Case No. 121751, by Lashawn Jones et. al., Case No. 121752, by Joan Strauss et. al. and Case No. 121753, by Donna Allen et. al. The suits relate to alleged noxious and harmful emissions from our facility located in Marrero, Louisiana. The suits seek damages for physical and emotional injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and deprivation of the use and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ homes. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves and oppose the relief sought in the complaints, provided that at this stage of the litigation, the Company has no basis for determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation.

On November 17, 2020, Vertex filed a lawsuit against Penthol LLC (“Penthol”) in the District Court for the 61st Judicial District, Harris County, Texas (Cause No. 2020-65269), for breach of contract and simultaneously sought a Temporary Injunction enjoining Penthol from, among other things, circumventing Vertex in violation of the terms of that certain June 5, 2016 Sales Representative and Marketing Agreement entered into between Vertex Operating and Penthol (the “Penthol Agreement”). On February 8, 2021, Penthol filed a complaint against Vertex Operating with the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston division; Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-416 (the “Complaint”). Because the issues raised in the Complaint largely mirror those in the then pending state court action in the District Court of Harris County Texas, 61st Judicial District Court, the state court action was removed to federal court and combined with the pending federal court action. Penthol’s Complaint seeks damages from Vertex Operating for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, breach of contract, business disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Penthol is seeking a declaration that the Penthol Agreement is invalid, unenforceable and was terminated on January 27, 2021, or that Penthol’s actions are excused due to Vertex’s breach of such agreement; that Vertex has materially breached the agreement; an injunction that prohibits enforcement of the agreement, Vertex from using Penthol’s trade secrets, and requires Vertex to return any of Penthol’s trade secrets; awards of actual, treble, consequential and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of court; and other relief to which it may be entitled. Vertex contends the claims made by Penthol are completely without merit, and that the termination of the Penthol Agreement was wrongful and resulted in damages to Vertex that it will seek to recover. Further, Vertex contends that the termination of the Penthol Agreement by Penthol constitutes a breach by Penthol under the express terms of the Penthol Agreement, and that Vertex remains entitled to payment of the amounts due Vertex under the Penthol Agreement for unpaid commissions and unpaid performance incentives. On March 2,
2021, Vertex filed a Motion to Dismiss Penthol's lawsuit with the court. Vertex plans to seek the recovery of its legal fees and costs incurred in enforcing its rights under the terms of the Penthol Agreement.Vertex disputes Penthol’s allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

We cannot predict the impact (if any) that any of the matters described above may have on our business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters, including the early stage and lack of specific damage claims in the Penthol matter, we cannot estimate the range of possible losses from them (except as otherwise indicated).

Related Parties
From time to time, the Company consults with a related party law firm. During the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, we paid $33,228 and $24,689, respectively, to such law firm for services rendered.