J.	Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases certain equipment and facilities under operating leases, of which rent expense was approximately $3.6 million, $2.9 million and $3.0 million for the years ended September 30, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Rent expense for the Company’s operating leases, which generally have escalating rentals over the term of the lease, is recorded using the straight-line method over the initial lease term whereby an equal amount of rent expense is attributed to each period during the term of the lease, regardless of when actual payments are made. Generally, this results in rent expense in excess of cash payments during the early years of a lease and rent expense less than cash payments in the later years. The difference between rent expense recognized and actual rental payments is recorded as other long-term liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

Future minimum annual lease obligations as of September 30, 2013 are as follows:

(in thousands)

2014	$	4,015
2015		3,847
2016		3,680
2017		3,448
2018		3,066
Thereafter		15,622

Total future minimum lease obligations	$	33,678

Legal Matters

Beginning January 1, 2008, the Company’s Texas clubs became subject to a new state law requiring each club to collect and pay a $5 surcharge for every club visitor. A lawsuit was filed by the Texas Entertainment Association (“TEA”), an organization to which the Company is a member, alleging the fee amounts to be an unconstitutional tax. On March 28, 2008, a State District Court Judge in Travis County, Texas ruled that the new state law violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore invalid. The judge’s order enjoined the State from collecting or assessing the tax. The State appealed the Court’s ruling. In Texas, when cities or the State give notice of appeal, it supersedes and suspends the judgment, including the injunction. Therefore, the judgment of the District Court cannot be enforced until the appeals are completed. Given the suspension of the judgment, the State gave notice of its right to collect the tax pending the outcome of its appeal but took no affirmative action to enforce that right. On June 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Third District (Austin) affirmed the District Court’s judgment that the Sexually Oriented Business (“S.O.B.”) Fee violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but on August 26, 2011, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the SOB Fee does not violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the fee violates the Texas Constitution.

TEA appealed the Texas Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court (regarding the constitutionality of the fee under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), but the U.S. Supreme Court denied the appeal on January 23, 2012. Subsequently, the case was remanded to the District Court for consideration of the remaining issues raised by TEA. On June 28, 2012, the District Court in Travis County held a hearing on TEA’s Texas Constitutional claims and on July 9 entered an order finding that the tax was a constitutional Occupations Tax. The Court denied the remainder of TEA’s constitutional claims. TEA is now in the process of appealing this new decision to the Texas Third Court of Appeals.

The Company has not made any payments of these taxes since the first quarter of 2009 and plans not to make any such payments while the case is pending in the courts. However, the Company will continue to accrue and expense the potential tax liability on its financial statements, so any ultimate negative ruling will not have any effect on its consolidated income statement and will only affect the consolidated balance sheet. If the final decision of the courts is ultimately in the Company’s favor, as it believes it will be, then the Company will record a one-time gain of the entire amount previously expensed.

Since the inception of the tax, the Company has paid more than $2 million to the State of Texas under protest for all four quarters of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, expensing it in the consolidated financial statements (except for two locations in Dallas where the taxes have not been paid, but the Company is accruing and expensing the liability). For all subsequent quarters, as a result of the Third Court’s 2009 decision, the Company has accrued the tax, but not paid the State. Accordingly, as of September 30, 2013, the Company has approximately $13.0 million in accrued liabilities for this tax. Patron tax expense amounted to approximately $3.2 million and $3.0 million for the years ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The Company’s Texas clubs have filed a separate lawsuit against the State in which the Company raises additional challenges to the statute imposing the fee or tax, demanding repayment of the taxes the Company has paid under this statute. The courts have not yet addressed these additional claims. If the Company is successful in the remaining litigation, the amount the Company has paid under protest should be repaid or applied to any future, constitutional admission tax or other Texas state tax liabilities.

The Company’s subsidiary that operated the club in Las Vegas has recently been audited by the Department of Taxation of the State of Nevada for sales and other taxes. The audit period was from the date of opening in September 2008 through July 31, 2010. As a result of the audit, the Department of Taxation contends that the Company’s Las Vegas subsidiary owes approximately $2.1 million, including penalties and interest, for Las Vegas Live Entertainment Taxes. The Company does not believe it is subject to the Live Entertainment Tax and is protesting the audit results. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued the contingent liability in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. It is unknown at this time whether the resolution of this uncertainty will have a material effect on the Company’s operations.

Rick’s Cabaret International, Inc. (“RCII”) and subsidiaries RCI NY, Inc. (“RCI NY”) and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. (“Peregrine”) have been defendants in a federal court action, pending since March 30, 2009, in the Southern District of New York relating to claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York’s wage and hour laws. While Plaintiffs do not specifically allege the amount of monetary relief sought in their Complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged that they are seeking judgment equal to any unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the FLSA and New York Labor Law. RCII, RCI NY and Peregrine deny liability in this matter, are vigorously defending the allegations and have asserted counterclaims and affirmative defenses for offset and unjust enrichment. Discovery is now complete and on September 10, 2013, the court ruled on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on their causes of action for minimum wage and held that entertainers at Rick’s NY are employees, that Peregrine was an employer of the Plaintiffs and that under federal law, Rick’s NY’s statutory duty to pay minimum wages was not satisfied by the performance fees Plaintiffs’ received. The court has not yet ruled on whether performance fees can offset minimum wages under New York state law. The court denied the Plaintiffs’ attempt to hold RCII or RCI NY liable as joint employers with Peregrine and the issue of whether RCII and RCI NY are also employers will be determined at a trial. The court asked for further briefing as to certain issues, which may limit the decision as to these issues and additional motions are presently pending before the court. Ultimately, the RCII, RCI NY and Peregrine intend to appeal the summary judgment ruling.

In September 2011, the Company’s subsidiary, RCI Entertainment Las Vegas, Inc. (“RCI Las Vegas”) and Rick’s Cabaret International were sued by the lessor of its club in Las Vegas for breach of contract and other issues relating to RCI Las Vegas’ lease. This suit was settled in June 2013 and the Company paid $150,000 to settle all claims.

The Company settled a bodily injury lawsuit during the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The Company paid $160,000 of the settlement after insurance proceeds.

In September 2011, the Company and its CEO were sued in District Court in Travis County Texas by a shareholder for damages as a result of the plaintiff’s alleged inability to sell shares on the open market due to restrictive legends which the plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to remove in a timely manner. On March 21, 2012, the Company agreed to a settlement in the case. The terms of the settlement provide for the payment of $2,650,000 to the plaintiff and a full and complete release of the Company and the Company’s CEO. The settlement amount will be paid with approximately $850,000 in insurance proceeds and a cash payment from the Company of approximately $1.8 million. No admission of liability was made by the Company. The parties completed the settlement documents and an Order of Dismissal was entered into on April 19, 2012. The $1.8 million has been expensed in the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company and its subsidiaries were insured under a liability policy issued by Indemnity Insurance Corporation, RRG (“IIC”) through October 25, 2013—the Company switched to a different insurer on that date. By order dated November 7, 2013, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware declared IIC impaired, insolvent and in an unsafe condition and placed IIC under the supervision of the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware (“Commissioner”) in her capacity as receiver. The order empowers the Commissioner to rehabilitate IIC through a variety of means, including gathering assets and marshaling those assets as necessary. Further, the order has stayed or abated pending lawsuits involving IIC as the insurer until May 6, 2014. As a result, it is unclear to what degree, if any, the Company and its subsidiaries will have insurance coverage under the liability policy with IIC until after the rehabilitation plan is completed and the stay is lifted on May 6, 2014. Currently, there are multiple civil lawsuits pending or threatened against the Company and its subsidiaries. There is also the potential that other lawsuits of which the Company currently is unaware could be filed against the Company for incidents that occurred before October 25, 2013. There can be no assurances the Company will have adequate insurance coverage for any of these lawsuits. It is unknown at this time what effect, if any, this uncertainty will have on the Company.