Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

Texas Patron Tax

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 Tax 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 Tax 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 and in doing so exhausted the State's rights to appeal the judgment. The lawsuit was sent back to the trial court for post-trial proceedings, which resulted in the award of attorneys' fees to the operating subsidiaries. Pursuant to the rulings, 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, 2023, we have 1 remaining unresolved claim out of the original 71 claims.

Shareholder Derivative Action

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 and failure to maintain internal controls. These allegations are substantively similar to claims asserted in a prior securities class action that was settled in August of 2022 and a prior derivative action that was dismissed in June of 2021. On July 24, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action. The parties are preparing a settlement agreement and anticipate seeking Court approval of the proposed settlement in the next 30 days. The Company believes that payments under the settlement agreement will be covered by insurance.

Other

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 this report, 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.

In March 2023, the New York State Department of Labor assessed a final judgment against one of our subsidiaries in a state unemployment tax matter for the years 2009-2022. The assessment of $2.8 million, which was recorded by the Company during the quarter ended March 31, 2023, was issued in final notice by the NY DOL after several appeals were denied by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department.

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, 2023 amount to $0.1 million and $3.2 million, respectively, and for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2022 amount to approximately $132,000 and $709,000, respectively. As of June 30, 2023 and September 30, 2022, the Company has accrued $1.9 million and $246,000 in accrued liabilities, respectively, related to settlement of lawsuits.