Commitments and Contingencies
|9 Months Ended|
Oct. 03, 2022
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||Commitments and Contingencies
In February 2020, the Company entered into an asset purchase agreement with an unrelated third party for the sale of substantially all of the assets used in connection with the operation of BF Dania Beach, LLC. The closing of this transaction has been delayed due to additional negotiation that has been on-going. In the event the transaction is terminated, the Company will begin operating the restaurant, and return the deposit to the unrelated third-party purchaser. Assets used in the operations of BF Dania Beach, LLC totaling $0.7 million have been classified as held for sale in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of October 3, 2022 and December 31, 2021.
Eric Gilbert v. BurgerFi International, Inc., Ophir Sternberg, et al. (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2022-0185- , filed on February 25, 2022). Mr. Gilbert filed a class action lawsuit against BurgerFi International, Inc. and each of the members of the Board of Directors alleging that the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws improperly contains a provision restricting written consents by the stockholders. Mr. Gilbert sought an amendment to the bylaws, as well as attorney’ fees and costs. On March 23, 2022, BurgerFi made conforming amendments to its bylaws to remove the provision restricting written consents by the stockholders. On March 24, 2022, Mr. Gilbert and the Court entered an order voluntarily dismissing the action as moot and retaining jurisdiction to determine Mr. Gilbert’s application for award of attorney’s fees and expenses. At this stage, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor can we reasonably estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. Based on the information known to date, the Company’s potential liability appears to be reasonably possible, but the amount or range of potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.
Second 82nd SM, LLC v. BF NY 82, LLC, BurgerFi International, LLC and BurgerFi International, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York, index No. 654907/2021, filed August 11, 2021). A lawsuit was filed by Second 82nd SM, LLC (“Landlord”) against BF NY 82, LLC (“Tenant”) whereby Landlord brought a seven-count lawsuit for, among other things, breach of the lease agreement and underlying guaranty of the lease. The amount of damages Landlord is seeking is over $0.5 million, which constitutes back rent, late charges, real estate taxes, illuminated sign charges and water/sewer charges. On November 3, 2021, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On November 17, 2021, the Tenant filed an Answer to Landlord’s Complaint and a cross claim against the Company, which the Company answered on December 7, 2021. On December 22, 2021, the Company filed its Response in Opposition to Landlord’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memo in further Support of its Motion to Dismiss. The parties continue to discuss possible settlement, including turning over possession of the premises to the Landlord and payment of certain rent amounts. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, however, losses may be material to the Company’s financial position and results of operations.
Lion Point Capital, L.P. v. BurgerFi International, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York, Index No. 653099/2022, filed August 26, 2022. A lawsuit filed by Lion Point against the Company, alleging that the Company failed to timely register Lion Point’s shares in violation of the registration rights agreement to which Lion Point is a party, which allegedly resulted in losses in excess of $26 million. We believe that all claims are meritless, and we plan to vigorously defend these allegations. Management is unable to determine the likelihood of a loss or range of loss, if any, which may result from the cases described above, therefore, no contingent liability has been recorded as of October 3, 2022; any losses, however, may be material to the Company's financial position and results of operations.
John Rosatti, as Trustee of the John Rosatti Revocable Trust U/A/D 08/27/2001 (the “JR Trust”) v. BurgerFi International, Inc. (Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Florida, File No. 146578749). On March 28, 2022, the JR Trust filed a suit against BurgerFi alleging that the JR Trust suffered losses in excess of $10 million relating to BurgerFi’s alleged failure to timely file a registration statement. The parties entered in to negotiations that would resolve this matter as well as all other litigation and disputes between the parties, including the disputes surrounding certain stores owned directly or indirectly by the JR Trust that are operated on its behalf by the Company however, a settlement is still being negotiated between the parties. No assurance can be made that the parties will enter into any such final settlement agreement on the proposed terms or at all.
Burger Guys of Dania Pointe, et. al. v. BFI, LLC (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50-2021-CA -006501-XXXX-MB, filed May 21, 2021). In response to a demand letter issued by BurgerFi to Gino Gargiulo, a former franchisee, demanding that Mr. Gargiulo pay the balance owed under an asset purchase agreement wherein BurgerFi sold the Dania Beach, Florida BurgerFi location to Mr. Gargiulo, Mr. Gargiulo filed suit against BurgerFi claiming, in addition to other matters, that no further monies are owed under the asset purchase agreement and alleges that BurgerFi is responsible for one of Gargiulo’s former failed franchises in Sunny Isles, Florida, losses he has allegedly sustained at his Dania Beach location, as well as reimbursement of expenses in connection with his marketing company. Mr. Gargiulo seeks damages in excess of $2 million in the aggregate. The parties attended mediation on January 20, 2022, but it ended in an impasse. Mr. Gargiulo amended his complaint in April 2022, which, among other matters, amended the defendant parties. In October 2022, the Company filed an additional motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery, both of which are pending with the Court. We believe that all claims are meritless, and we plan to vigorously defend these allegations. Management is unable to determine the likelihood of a loss or range of loss, if any, which may result from the cases described above, therefore, no contingent liability has been recorded as of October 3, 2022; any losses, however, may be material to the Company's financial position and results of operations.
All Round Food Bakery Products, Inc. v. BurgerFi International, LLC and Neri’s Bakery Products, Inc. et al (Supreme Court Westchester County, New York (Index Number 52170-2020)). In a suit filed in February 2020, the plaintiff, All Round Food Bakery Products, Inc. (“All Round Food”) alleges breach of contract and lost profits in excess of $1 million over the course of the supply agreement with the Company and Neri’s Bakery Products, Inc. (“Neri’s” and together with the Company, the “Defendants”). The Defendants assert, among other matters, that the supply agreement amongst the parties, whereby All Round Food was warehousing BurgerFi products produced by Neri’s, was terminated when All Round Food failed to cure its material breach of the supply agreement after due notice. The parties attended mediation to attempt to resolve the dispute, however, no resolution was reached. We believe that all claims are meritless, and we plan to vigorously defend these allegations. Management is unable to determine the likelihood of a loss or range of loss, if any, which may result from the cases described above, therefore, no contingent liability has been recorded as of October 3, 2022; any losses, however, may be material to the Company's financial position and results of operations.
Employment Related Matters
In July 2021, the Company received a demand letter from the attorney of one of our now former hourly restaurant employees. The letter alleges that the former employee was sexually harassed by one of her co-workers. The demand letters claim that we discriminated and retaliated against the former employee based on her gender and age and also alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, negligent training, and negligent supervision. The claimant alleges damages of more than $0.8 million.
In November 2021, a former employee filed suit alleging that she was sexually harassed by one of her co-workers. The lawsuit claims that we discriminated and retaliated against her and alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, and battery. The claimant alleges damages of $0.3 million.
While we believe that all claims of the above-mentioned Employment Related Claims, which are covered under the Company’s insurance policies, are meritless, and we plan to defend these allegations, it is reasonably possible that the Company may ultimately be required to pay substantial damages to the claimants, which could be up to $1.1 million or more in aggregate compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Management believes that any liability, in excess of applicable insurance coverages or accruals, which may result from these claims, would not be significant to the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
General Liability and Other Claims
The Company is subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise during the normal course of business, including landlord disputes, slip and fall cases, and various food related matters. While we intend to vigorously defend these matters, it is reasonably possible that the Company may be required to pay substantial damages to the claimants. Management believes that any liability, in excess of applicable insurance coverages or accruals, which may result from these claims, would not be significant to the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
From time to time, we enter into purchase commitments for food commodities in the normal course of business. As of October 3, 2022, we entered into $0.5 million in unconditional purchase obligations over the next quarter.
No definition available.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef