Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)


3 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies Contingencies
Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued, which may result in a loss to the Company, but which will be resolved only when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The Company’s management, in consultation with its legal counsel as appropriate, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessment inherently involves an exercise of judgment.
During the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to various claims and litigation. Management believes that after consulting legal counsel the outcome of such claims or litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flow.
Kadima Litigation

The Company is in a dispute with its former software developer, Kadima Ventures (“Kadima”), over incomplete but paid for software development work. In May 2016, the Company entered into a contract with Kadima for the development and deployment of user features that were proposed by Kadima for an original build cost of $2.2 million to complete. This proposal was later revised upward to approximately $7.2 million to add certain features to the original proposal. As of the date of this Quarterly Report, the Company has paid approximately $11 million to Kadima, but has never been provided access to the majority of the promised software. Kadima has refused to continue development work, denied access to developed software, and refused to surrender to the Company any software that it has developed unless the Company pays an additional $12.0 million above the $11.0 million already paid. In April 2019, Kadima filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, alleging claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment, and seeking damages in excess of $11.0 million. The Company vigorously disputes and denies each of Kadima’s claims, including that it owes any sums to Kadima, and further believes that it is entitled, at a minimum, to a refund of a substantial portion of the sums that it has already paid, along with the release of the software modules currently being withheld. In June 2020, the Company engaged in a mediation with Kadima in an attempt to resolve the matter, which was unsuccessful. On July 14, 2020 the Company filed an answer to Kadima’s complaint, which denied Kadima’s claims and asserted counter-claims for breach of contract and fraud. Discovery is substantially complete, and a trial date has not been set.

Splond Litigation

On April 8, 2019, claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark County, naming the Company and its client as defendants, and alleging violations of certain wage and hour laws. This lawsuit is in the initial stages, and the Company denies any liability. Even if the plaintiff ultimately prevails, the potential damages recoverable will depend substantially upon whether the Court determines in the future that this lawsuit may appropriately be maintained as a class action. Further, in the event that the Court ultimately enters a judgment in favor of plaintiff, the Company believes that it would be contractually entitled to be indemnified by its client against at least a portion of any damage award.

Radaro Litigation

On July 9, 2020, the Company was served with a complaint filed by one of its former software vendors, Radaro Inc., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging damages arising from claims sounding in breach of
contract and fraud. By Order filed October 21, 2020, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims for fraud and for punitive damages, with leave to replead. The Company denies plaintiff’s claims and is defending the lawsuit vigorously. Discovery is underway, and the Court has set a trial date of September 6, 2022.

Everest Litigation

On December 18, 2020, the Company was served with a Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by its former workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Everest National Insurance Company. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that the Company owes certain premium payments to plaintiff under a retrospective rated policy, and seeks damages of approximately $600,000. On February 5, 2021, the Company filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint denying its claims for relief, and also filed a cross-claim against the third party claims administrator, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., for claims sounding in breach of contract and negligence based upon its administration of claims arising under the policy. By order dated April 7, 2021, the Court dismissed the Company’s complaint against Gallagher Bassett without prejudice to re-filing in another forum. On May 17, 2021, the Company refiled its complaint against Gallagher Basset in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Discovery is underway in both cases, and the California Court has set a trial date in the Everest case of February 22, 2022, while no trial date has been set in the Illinois case.

Sunz Litigation

On March 19, 2021, the Company was served with a Complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit, Manatee County, Florida, by its former workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Sunz Insurance Solutions, LLC. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that the Company owes payments for loss reserve funds totaling approximately $10 million. The Company denies plaintiff’s allegations and is defending the lawsuit vigorously. On May 12, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and Sunz filed an amended complaint in response. Discovery is proceeding in the matter and no trial date has been set.

Vensure Litigation

On September 7, 2021, Shiftable HR Acquisition, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vensure, filed a complaint against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware asserting claims arising from the Asset Purchase Agreement (the “APA”) governing the Vensure Asset Sale described above. The APA provided for Vensure to purchase, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, certain of the Company’s assets for total consideration of $19 million in cash, with $9.5 million to be paid at closing, and the remainder to be paid in 48 equal monthly installments (the “Installment Sum”). The Installment Sum was subject to certain adjustments to account for various post-closing payments made by the parties, and the APA provided for the following procedure to determine the final amount of the Installment Sum: (i) Within 90 days of the effective date, Vensure was required to provide the Company with a “Proposed Closing Statement”, which must detail any adjustments; (ii) Within 30 days of its receipt of Vensure’s Proposed Closing Statement, the Company had the right to challenge any of the proposed adjustments contained therein; and (iii) If the Company disputed Vensure’s Proposed Closing Statement, a 30-day period ensued for the parties to attempt to resolve the dispute, with the Company entitled to examine “such Books and Records of [Vensure] as relate to the specific items of dispute . . .”

Vensure resisted the Company’s repeated efforts to obtain the Proposed Closing Statement for over one year after the closing of the transaction. Finally, on March 12, 2021, under threat of legal action by the Company, Vensure provided its Proposed Closing Statement, in which it contended for the first time that it owes nothing to the Company, and that the Company actually owes Vensure the sum of $1,519,991. By letter dated April 6, 2021, the Company provided Vensure with its objections to the Proposed Closing Statement, which included Vensure’s gross overstatement of payments it purportedly made on the Company’s behalf, as well as its bad faith actions in obstructing the Company’s efforts to make these payments.

From April 2021 through August 2021, Vensure and the Company engaged in the “30-day negotiation period” referred to above, which was extended multiple times at Vensure’s request to provide Vensure an opportunity to provide evidence supporting its assertions. Over the course of these negotiations, Vensure withdrew its claim for approximately $1.5 million from the Company, and acknowledged that Vensure owed ShiftPixy some portion of the Installment Fund. Nevertheless, in early September 2021, without warning and contrary to the dispute resolution provisions of the APA, Vensure filed suit against the Company in Delaware Chancery Court for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, seeking unspecified damages. The Company vigorously disputes and denies each of Vensure’s claims. Accordingly, on November 4, 2021, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim to Vensure’s Complaint, in which it not only denied Vensure’s claims, but also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. The counterclaim seeks damages from Vensure
totaling approximately $9.5 million – the full amount due under the APA - plus an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. Discovery is expected to commence shortly.