XML 26 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jul. 03, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Indemnification Agreements - In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company or intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise due to their status or service as directors, officers or employees. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe that the outcome of any claims under indemnification arrangements will have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity.
Legal Proceedings - A lawsuit was filed on December 17, 2015 by SRAM Corporation (“SRAM”) in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, RFE Canada Holding Corp. (“RFE Canada”). The lawsuit alleges patent infringement of U.S. Patent number 9,182,027 ("027 Patent") and violation of the Lanham Act. SRAM filed a second lawsuit in the same court against RFE Canada on May 16, 2016, alleging patent infringement of U.S Patent number 9,291,250 ("'250 Patent"). The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends vigorously to defend itself. As such, the Company has filed, before the U. S. Patent and Trademark Appeals Board ("PTAB"), for Interparties Reviews ("IPR") of the '027 Patent and separately the same for the '250 Patent. In April 2018, the PTAB issued opinions in the ‘027 Patent petition cases stating that the Company has not shown the claims of the ‘027 Patent to be obvious. Regarding the PTAB ‘027 opinions, the Company has filed an Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC"). The CAFC found in favor of the Company and has vacated and remanded all of the PTAB findings with the exception of their finding that the ‘027 patent met the prima facia test for obviousness, which was affirmed. The CAFC has declined to rehear the case and has issued the final remand order sending the case back to the PTAB. The PTAB has issued an opinion in the ‘250 Patent case stating that the Company has not shown the claims of the ‘250 Patent to be obvious. The Company has appealed that PTAB opinion to the CAFC and the CAFC has affirmed the PTAB opinion.
In a separate action, the Company filed a lawsuit on January 29, 2016 in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against SRAM. That lawsuit alleges SRAM’s infringement of two separate Company owned patents, specifically U.S. Patent numbers 6,135,434 and 6,557,674. The Company filed a second lawsuit on July 1, 2016 in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against SRAM alleging infringement of the Company’s U.S. Patent numbers 8,226,172 and 8,974,009. These lawsuits have been moved to U.S. District Court, District of Colorado and are otherwise proceeding. The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, has again stayed the SRAM lawsuits against the Company pending outcome of the remanded ‘027 PTAB issue.
Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company is not able to predict either the outcome or a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, at this time. Accordingly, no amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements for the settlement of these matters. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur, or if factors indicate that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable, the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The Company is involved in other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. Based on information currently available, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Other Commitments - On November 30, 2017, the Company through FF US Holding Corp., acquired the assets of Flagship, Inc., d/b/a Tuscany and issued a 20% interest in FF US Holding Corp. to Flagship, Inc. A stockholders' agreement with Flagship, Inc. provided the Company with a call option (the "Call Option") to acquire the remaining 20% of FF US Holding Corp. at any time from November 30, 2019 through November 30, 2024 at a value that approximates fair market value. On July 22, 2020, subsequent to its second fiscal quarter, the Company exercised the Call Option and entered into a stock purchase agreement with Flagship, Inc. whereby the Company agreed to purchase the remaining 20% interest for $24,975 payable in a combination of stock and cash. The cash portion will be settled in quarterly installment payments through July 2022, which amount to $6,556, $4,550 and $2,700 in 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively. The exercise of the Call Option effectively canceled the put option held by Flagship, Inc.
On July 24, 2019, the Company entered into a standard form of agreement with design-builder Carroll Daniel Construction Company to provide design and construction services related to an approximately 336,000 square foot facility located in Gainesville, Georgia. The Company plans to use the facility for the manufacture of its products including vehicle shock absorbers. This agreement was amended on December 23, 2019. The agreement contains several design and construction milestone dates that began in June 2019. The Company expects to pay a total of approximately $36,500 under the terms of this agreement. Any additional costs will be addressed as they arise until the completion of the facility, which is currently expected to occur on or around August 31, 2020.
Other Contingencies - On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) decided South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., et al., holding that internet retailers do not have to maintain a physical presence in a state in order to be required to collect the state’s sales and use tax. As a result of the Court’s decision, most states enacted legislation to require sellers who meet economic nexus thresholds to register, collect and remit sales and use taxes on transactions with out-of-state customers. The Company believes that it is possible that it will incur a liability for uncollected sales tax on some portion of its e-commerce sales through July 3, 2020. Based on information currently available, any retroactively imposed liability is not expected to be material to the Company’s results of operations or financial position because direct end-user sales in states where the Company is not registered comprise a small portion of total revenues.