Contingencies |
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Nov. 30, 2022 | |
| 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 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. Some of the matters are detailed below.
Kadima Litigation
The Company became engaged 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 November 30, 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 disputed and denied each of Kadima’s claims, including that it owes any sums to Kadima, and further asserted 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. Following trial of the case, the court, on November 23, 2022, entered a minute order, finding in favor of the Company and against Kadima in the amount of $5 million plus costs and fees. As noted in Note 12, Subsequent Events, the minute order was converted to a final judgement order, entered on January 4, 2023, in favor of the Company and against Kadima for $5 million in compensatory damages, plus an amount in excess of $1.8 million in pre-judgment interest, plus expert witness fees of $250,000, plus costs, plus post judgment interest.
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. The Company denies any liability. Discovery is proceeding in the case, and no trial date has been set. 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 denied plaintiff’s claims and defended the lawsuit vigorously. On October 31, 2022, the Company settled the claim with Radaro, the terms of which are confidential.
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 $0.6 million, which demand has since increased to approximately $1.6 million. 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. Everest subsequently filed a complaint against Gallagher Bassett in New Jersey. Discovery is underway in the cases, and the California Court has set a trial date in the Everest case of August 8, 2023, while no trial date has been set in either of the related Illinois or New Jersey cases, which are in preliminary stages. Mediation in the matter was conducted on December 14, 2022, and the matter was kept open until further notice as the partied are seeking to settle the 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, which represents approximately 200% of the amount of incurred and unpaid claims. 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 June 21, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment, holding that Defendant is liable under the contract, but further finding that the amount of damages, if any, to which Plaintiff is entitled should be determined at trial. We believe that partial summary judgment was improvidently granted, and therefore appealed the Court’s Order by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeal, which appeal is now pending. On or about November 14, 2022, a court granted Sunz’ motion for summary judgment on a contractual issue—holding that the Company waived claims regarding Sunz’ management of claims to the extent that the Company did not complain about such management within 6 months of the alleged mismanagement of the claims. This ruling may limit the scope of the Company’s counterclaim.
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 $1.5 million. 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. The case is proceeding, and no trial date has been set.
Courvoisier Centre Litigation
On August 24, 2022, the landlord of our headquarters offices, Courvoisier Centre, LLC, filed a complaint against the Company in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court (Miami-Dade County, Florida) alleging breach of the lease. We vacated the offices and ceased payments under the lease in July of 2022, after repeatedly complaining to the landlord regarding the impact of its extensive renovations of the campus and building in which the Company's offices were situated, citing substantial impairments to the Company's ability to conduct business as well as concerns regarding the health and well-being of the Company’s employees and guests, and the Landlord’s inability and refusal to provide any adequate relief. On or about October 10, 2022, we filed our answer to the complaint and the Company's counterclaim. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit and seek recovery for its costs of relocation.
Certified Tire Litigation
On June 29, 2020, the Company was served with a complaint filed by its former client, Certified Tire, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County, naming the Company, two of its officers, and one of its former subsidiaries as defendants. The Complaint asserts multiple causes of action, all of which stem from the former client’s claim that the Company is obligated to reimburse it for sums it paid in settlement of a separate lawsuit brought by one of its employees pursuant to PAGA. This underlying lawsuit alleged the Company's former client was responsible for multiple violations of the California Labor Code. The Company and the officers named as defendants deny the former client’s allegations, and the Company is defending the lawsuit vigorously based primarily on the Company's belief that the alleged violations that gave rise to the underlying lawsuit were the responsibility of Certified Tire and not the Company. Discovery is currently proceeding, and trial is scheduled to commence on or after March 27, 2023. The Company’s dispositive motion for summary judgment was denied by the court because of its determination that factual disputes exist.
In Re John Stephen Holmes Bankruptcy Litigation
On November 8, 2022, the Chapter 7 trustee of the bankruptcy estate of John Stephen Holmes filed an action against the Company, asserting that the cancellation of Mr. Holmes' preferred options on October 22, 2021, violated the automatic stay applicable to Mr. Holmes' Chapter 7 proceedings. The matter is in the preliminary stages; as noted in Note 12, Subsequent Events, the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Nasdaq Listing Notifications
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 the Company's 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"). Following the completion of the reverse split of the Company's r common stock, which became effective on September 1, 2022, on September 19, 2022, the Company received a letter from the staff of Nasdaq (the "Staff") notifying the Company that the Staff has determined that for the last 10 consecutive business days, from September 1 to September 16, 2022, the closing bid price of the Company’s common stock had been at $1.00 per share or greater and that accordingly, the Company has regained compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2).
In addition, on April 21, 2022, ShiftPixy, Inc. (the “Company”) received a letter from the staff of the Listing Qualifications Department (the “Staff”) of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), which notified the Company that it did not comply with Nasdaq’s Listing Rule 5550(b)(1) that requires the Company to (i) maintain a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders’ equity for continued listing or (ii) meet the alternatives of minimum market value for listed securities or net income from continuing operations. On October 3, 2022, the Company received a letter from the Staff notifying the Company that the Staff has determined that the Company has regained compliance with Listing Rule 5550(b) in that, for the last 21 consecutive business days, from September 1 through September 30, 2022, the Company’s market value of listed securities has been above $35,000,000.
|