|9 Months Ended|
May 31, 2022
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
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 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.
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 May 31, 2022, the Company has paid approximately $11.0 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 complete, and the Court has set a trial date of September 12, 2022.
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.
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.
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, and the Court substantially denied Gallagher Basset's motion to dismiss the
complaint by order dated January 31, 2022. Discovery is underway in both cases, and the California Court has set a trial date in the Everest case of February 7, 2023, while no trial date has been set in the Illinois case.
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.
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.
Nasdaq Listing Notification
On April 4, 2022, we received a letter from the staff of the Listing Qualifications Department (the "Staff") of Nasdaq notifying us that for the previous 30 consecutive business days, the bid price for our common stock had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share requirement for continued listing under Nasdaq's Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) (the "Minimum Bid Requirement"). This notification has no immediate effect on the listing or trading of our common stock on Nasdaq. In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), if during the 180 calendar days following the notification, or prior to October 3, 2022, the closing bid price of our common stock is at or above $1.00 per share for a minimum of ten consecutive business days, the Staff will provide us with written confirmation of compliance. If we do not achieve the Minimum Bid Price Requirement by October 3, 2022, we may be eligible for an additional 180 calendar days compliance period if we meet the continued listing requirement for market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards for Nasdaq, with the exception of the Minimum
Bid Price Requirement, and we provide written notice of our intention to cure the deficiency during the second compliance period by effecting a reverse stock split, if necessary. However, if it appears to the Staff that we will not be able to cure the deficiency, or if we are otherwise not eligible, then the Staff would notify us that our securities would be subject to delisting. In the event of such notification, we may appeal the Staff's determination to delist our securities, but the Staff may refuse to grant our request for continued listing.
On April 21, 2022, we received a letter from the Staff notifying us that we are not in compliance with the Listing Rule 5550(b)(1)(the "Rule") requirement for companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market (the"Capital Market"). The Rule requires companies to maintain a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders' equity for continued listing. Since our Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2022, reported stockholders’ equity of ($10,727,000), and as of April 20, 2022, the Company does not meet the alternatives of market value of listed securities or net income from continuing operations, the Company no longer complies with the Staff Listing Rule. Under the Staff Rules, the Company has 45 calendar days to submit a plan to regain compliance. If our plan is accepted, the Staff can grant an extension of up to 180 calendar days from the date of this letter to evidence compliance.
On June 6, 2022, we submitted to the Staff, the plan for our Company to regain compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirements for continued listing on the Capital Market. We are currently working with the Staff to obtain approval on our submitted plan to regain compliance.