XML 26 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Matters
Texas Patron Tax
In 2015, the Company reached a settlement with the State of Texas over the payment of the state’s Patron Tax on adult club customers. To resolve the issue of taxes owed, the Company agreed to pay $10.0 million in equal monthly installments of $119,000, without interest, over 84 months, beginning in June 2015, for all but two non-settled locations. The Company agreed to remit the Patron Tax on a monthly basis, based on the current rate of $5 per customer. For accounting purposes, the Company discounted the $10.0 million at an imputed interest rate of 9.6%, establishing a net present value for the settlement of $7.2 million. As a consequence, the Company recorded an $8.2 million pre-tax gain for the third quarter ended June 30, 2015, representing the difference between the $7.2 million and the amount previously accrued for the tax.
In March 2017, the Company settled with the State of Texas for one of the two remaining unsettled Patron Tax locations. To resolve the issue of taxes owed, the Company agreed to pay a total of $687,815 with $195,815 paid at the time the settlement agreement was executed followed by 60 equal monthly installments of $8,200 without interest.
On April 20, 2022, the Company finally settled all of its remaining Patron Tax liability. The aggregate balance of Patron Tax settlement liability, which is included in long-term debt in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, amounted to $0 and $813,000 as of June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2021, respectively.
A declaratory judgment action was brought by five operating subsidiaries of the Company to challenge a Texas Comptroller administrative rule related to the $5 per customer Patron Fee assessed against Sexually Oriented Businesses. An administrative rule attempted to expand the fee to cover venues featuring dancers using latex cover as well as traditional nude entertainment. The administrative rule was challenged on both constitutional and statutory grounds. On November 19, 2018, the Court issued an order that a key aspect of the administrative rule is invalid based on it exceeding the scope of the Comptroller’s authority. On March 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, ruled that the Texas Patron Fee is unconstitutional as it has been applied and enforced by the Comptroller. The State of Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, who affirmed that the Texas Patron Fee is unconstitutional as applied. The State of Texas next sought review from the Supreme Court, but the high court declined to take the case. That lawsuit is now back before the trial court for post-trial proceedings but is final for purposes of determining the Texas Patron Fee is unconstitutional as applied to clubs featuring dancers using latex cover.
Indemnity Insurance Corporation
As previously reported, the Company and its subsidiaries were insured under a liability policy issued by Indemnity Insurance Corporation, RRG (“IIC”) through October 25, 2013. The Company and its subsidiaries changed insurance companies on that date.
On November 7, 2013, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered a Rehabilitation and Injunction Order (“Rehabilitation Order”), which 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 (“Receiver”). The Rehabilitation Order empowered the Commissioner to rehabilitate IIC through a variety of means, including gathering assets and marshaling those assets as necessary. Further, the order stayed or abated pending lawsuits involving IIC as the insurer until May 6, 2014.
On April 10, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered a Liquidation and Injunction Order With Bar Date (“Liquidation Order”), which ordered the liquidation of IIC and terminated all insurance policies or contracts of insurance issued by IIC. The Liquidation Order further ordered that all claims against IIC must have been filed with the Receiver before the close of business on January 16, 2015 and that all pending lawsuits involving IIC as the insurer were further stayed or abated until October 7, 2014. As a result, the Company and its subsidiaries no longer had insurance coverage under the liability policy with IIC. The Company has retained counsel to defend against and evaluate these claims and lawsuits. We are funding 100% of the costs of litigation and will seek reimbursement from the bankruptcy receiver. The Company filed the appropriate claims against IIC with the Receiver before the January 16, 2015 deadline and has provided updates as requested; however, there are no assurances of any recovery from these claims. It is unknown at this time what effect this uncertainty will have on the Company. As previously stated, since October 25, 2013, the Company has obtained general liability coverage from other insurers, which have covered and/or will cover any claims arising from actions after that date. As of June 30, 2022, we have 1 remaining unresolved claim out of the original 71 claims.
Shareholder Class and Derivative Actions
In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in the Company’s SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various alleged transactions by the Company and management. The complaints sought unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. These lawsuits were Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall (who is no longer an officer of the Company)); and Grossman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall). The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to consolidate the purported class actions. On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating the Hoffman, Grossman, and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The consolidated case is styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841. On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition to naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall, the amended complaint also added former directors Nourdean Anakar and Steven Jenkins as defendants. On April 24, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 31, 2021, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On April 14, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses, denying liability as to all claims. On June 14, 2021, a scheduling order was entered in the case, setting January 9, 2023 as the trial date. On December 22, 2021, an amended scheduling order was entered, extending the trial date to April 7, 2023 and extending all other case deadlines. The Company vigorously defended against this action. In January 2022, the parties engaged in settlement discussions beginning with a formal mediation on January 13, 2022, which resulted in an agreement-in-principle to resolve the matter. On January 24, 2022, a Joint Notice of Settlement was filed. On April 15, 2022, counsel for Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for (I) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (II) Certification of the Settlement Class; and (III) Approval of the Notice of Settlement. On April 28, 2022, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the Class Action Settlement and Notice. The Court set the final approval hearing for June 24, 2022. Plaintiffs sought to extend the hearing until August to comply with certain potential notice and related obligations to the purported class, and Defendants concurred with the request. On July 8, 2022, plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and a hearing has been set for August 12, 2022.
On January 21, 2022, Shiva Stein and Kevin McCarty filed a shareholder derivative action in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against former director Nourdean Anakar, Yura Barabash, former director Steven L. Jenkins, Eric Langan, Luke Lirot, former CFO Phillip K. Marshall, Elaine J. Martin, Allan Priaulx, and Travis Reese as defendants, as well as against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. as nominal defendant. The action, styled Stein v. Anakar, et al., No. 4:22-
mc-00149 (S.D. Tex.), alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged dissemination of inaccurate information, alleged failure to maintain internal controls, and alleged failure to properly manage company property. This action is in its preliminary phase, and a potential loss cannot yet be estimated. These allegations are substantively similar to claims asserted in the class action and a prior derivative action that was dismissed in June of 2021. RCI intends to vigorously defend against the action. On April 2, 2022, the Company and its current and former officers and directors named in the shareholder derivative complaint filed their Motions to Dismiss and the derivative plaintiffs have responded. The Motions now have been fully briefed for the Court's consideration.
Other
On March 26, 2016, an image infringement lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Company and several of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs allege that their images were misappropriated, intentionally altered and published without their consent by clubs affiliated with the Company. The causes of action asserted in Plaintiffs’ Complaint include alleged violations of the Federal Lanham Act, the New York Civil Rights Act, and other statutory and common law theories. The Company contends that there is insurance coverage under an applicable insurance policy. The insurer has raised several issues regarding coverage under the policy. At this time, this disagreement remains unresolved. The Company has denied all allegations, continues to vigorously defend against the lawsuit and continues to believe the matter is covered by insurance.
On June 23, 2014, Mark H. Dupray and Ashlee Dupray filed a lawsuit against Pedro Antonio Panameno and our subsidiary JAI Dining Services (Phoenix) Inc. (“JAI Phoenix”) in the Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County. The suit alleged that Mr. Panameno injured Mr. Dupray in a traffic accident after being served alcohol at an establishment operated by JAI Phoenix. The suit alleged that JAI Phoenix was liable under theories of common law dram shop negligence and dram shop negligence per se. After a jury trial proceeded to a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against both defendants, in April 2017 the Court entered a judgment under which JAI Phoenix’s share of compensatory damages is approximately $1.4 million and its share of punitive damages is $4.0 million. In May 2017, JAI Phoenix filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, motion for new trial. The Court denied this motion in August 2017. In September 2017, JAI Phoenix filed a notice of appeal. In June 2018, the matter was heard by the Arizona Court of Appeals. On November 15, 2018 the Court of Appeals vacated the jury’s verdict and remanded the case to the trial court. It is anticipated that a new trial will occur at some point in the future. JAI Phoenix will continue to vigorously defend itself.
As set forth in the risk factors as disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, the adult entertainment industry standard is to classify adult entertainers as independent contractors, not employees. While we take steps to ensure that our adult entertainers are deemed independent contractors, from time to time, we are named in lawsuits related to the alleged misclassification of entertainers. Claims are brought under both federal and where applicable, state law. Based on the industry standard, the manner in which the independent contractor entertainers are treated at the clubs, and the entertainer license agreements governing the entertainer’s work at the clubs, the Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit. Lawsuits are handled by attorneys with an expertise in the relevant law and are defended vigorously.
General
In the regular course of business affairs and operations, we are subject to possible loss contingencies arising from third-party litigation and federal, state, and local environmental, labor, health and safety laws and regulations. We assess the probability that we could incur liability in connection with certain of these lawsuits. Our assessments are made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, as codified in ASC 450-20, and is not an admission of any liability on the part of the Company or any of its subsidiaries. In certain cases that are in the early stages and in light of the uncertainties surrounding them, we do not currently possess sufficient information to determine a range of reasonably possible liability. In matters where there is insurance coverage, in the event we incur any liability, we believe it is unlikely we would incur losses in connection with these claims in excess of our insurance coverage.
Settlements of lawsuits for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2022 amount to approximately $132,000 and $709,000, respectively, and for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2021 amount to approximately $127,000 and $280,000, respectively. As of June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2021, the Company has accrued $181,000 and $378,000 in accrued liabilities, respectively, related to settlement of lawsuits.