• Filing Date: 2018-05-10
  • Form Type: 10-Q
  • Description: Quarterly report
Commitments and Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Agreements

The Company leases office space under a lease that commenced on October 1, 2014. The lease expires on September 30, 2020. The annual base rent is $246,000, with a provision for a 3% increase on each anniversary of the rent commencement date. Rent expense was approximately $114,000 and $106,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Employment Agreements

The Company has entered into employment agreements with certain of its officers, including with its chief financial officer, whose agreement provides for payments in the event that the executive terminates her employment with the Company due to a material change in the geographic location where the chief financial officer performs her duties or upon a material diminution of her base salary or responsibilities, with or without cause. These (the "2018 Martinez Agreement"). If the Company terminates Ms. Martinez’s employment without cause or she resigns with Good Reason (as defined in the 2018 Martinez Agreement), she will be entitled to receive her base salary or $352,229, whichever is greater, through the twelve (12) months following such termination (the "Martinez Severance Period") as well as any bonus earned but not yet paid. If Ms. Martinez resigns for good reason, she will also be entitled to have the Company continue to pay its portion of healthcare premiums for plans in which she is participating immediately prior to the termination through the Martinez Severance
Period. If such termination or resignation occurs within two years after a change in control (as defined in the 2018 Martinez Agreement), then in lieu of receiving her base salary, Ms. Martinez would be entitled to receive (i) accrued vacation days, (ii) a lump sum payments are equal to one times the sum of two times her then chief financial officer’s base salary., (iii) a portion of her bonus prorated through the termination date that would be due to her when bonus payments are otherwise made for the year in which the termination occurs, (iv) any unpaid portion of a bonus for the year preceding the termination, and (v) reimbursement of COBRA healthcare costs through the Martinez Severance Period.

The Company does not have any general policies regarding the use of employment agreements, but has and may, from time to time, enter into such a written agreement to reflect the terms and conditions of employment of a particular named executive officer, whether at the time of hire or thereafter.


In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Company, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable. When a loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Company will establish an accrued liability with respect to such loss contingency and record a corresponding amount of litigation-related expense. The Company will then continue to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of any such accrued liability.

Sun Life

On April 18, 2013, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life") filed a complaint against the Company and several of its affiliates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entitled Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Sun Life Case"), asserting, among other things, that at least 28 life insurance policies issued by Sun Life and owned by the Company through certain of its subsidiary companies were invalid. The Sun Life complaint, as amended, asserted the following claims: (1) violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, (2) conspiracy to violate the RICO Act, (3) common law fraud, (4) aiding and abetting fraud, (5) civil conspiracy to commit fraud, (6) tortious interference with contractual obligations, and (7) a declaration that the policies issued were void. Following the filing of a motion by the Company to dismiss the Sun Life Case, on December 9, 2014, counts (2), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the Sun Life Case were dismissed with prejudice. The Company then filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining counts. On February 4, 2015, the Court issued an order (the "Order") granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment on counts (1) and (3), resulting in the Company prevailing on all counts in the Sun Life Case.

On July 29, 2013, the Company filed a separate complaint against Sun Life in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, captioned Imperial Premium Finance, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Imperial Case"), which was subsequently consolidated with the Sun Life Case. The Imperial Case asserted claims against Sun Life for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud, and sought a judgment declaring that Sun Life is obligated to comply with the promises made by it in certain insurance policies. The Imperial complaint also sought compensatory damages amounting to at least $30.0 million and an award of punitive damages. On August 23, 2013, Sun Life moved to dismiss the complaint, but the Court denied Sun Life’s motion in early 2015. Subsequently, on February 26, 2015, Sun Life appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company moved to dismiss Sun Life’s appeal and, on December 17, 2015, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Company, dismissing Sun Life’s appeal. The Imperial Case therefore returned to the District Court.

On September 22, 2016, however, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Sun Life on the entirety of the Imperial Case. Subsequently, on January 12, 2017, the Company appealed the District Court’s decision, and on January 24, 2017, Sun Life filed its own notice of appeal. As part of these two appeals, the Court of Appeals will review every dispositive order issued by the District Court throughout the consolidated case. Per the Court of Appeals, oral argument will be scheduled in the near future.
In January 2018, oral argument was held in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the decision is pending.

Other Litigation

Other litigation is defined as smaller claims or litigations that are neither individually nor collectively material.  It does not include lawsuits that relate to collections.

The Company is party to various other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business, separate from normal course accounts receivable collections matters. Due to the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of these litigations and other legal proceedings, the Company cannot predict the eventual outcome of these matters, and it is reasonably possible that some of them could be resolved unfavorably to the Company. As a result, it is possible that the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in a particular fiscal period could be materially affected by an unfavorable resolution of pending litigation or contingencies. However, the Company believes that the resolution of these other proceedings will not, based on information currently available, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.