Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Sales or Other Similar Taxes—Based on the location of the Company’s current operations, the majority of sales tax is collected and remitted either by the Company or on its behalf by e-commerce marketplaces in most states within the United States. To date, the Company has had no actual or threatened sales and use tax claims from any state where it does not already claim nexus or any state where it sold products prior to claiming nexus. However, the Company believes that the likelihood of incurring a liability as a result of sales tax nexus being asserted by certain states where it sold products prior to claiming nexus is probable. As of each of December 31, 2020 and September 30, 2021, the Company estimates that the potential liability, including current sales tax payable is approximately $0.5 million and $0.7 million, respectively, which has been recorded as an accrued liability. The Company believes this is the best estimate of an amount due to taxing agencies, given that such a potential loss is an unasserted liability that would be contested and subject to negotiation between the Company and the state, or decided by a court.

U.S. Department of Energy—In September 2019, the Company received a Test Notice from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) indicating that a certain dehumidifier model may not comply with applicable energy-conservation standards. The DOE requested that the Company provide it with several model units for DOE testing.  If the Company is determined to have violated certain energy-conservation standards, it could be fined pursuant to DOE guidelines, and this civil penalty may be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company has submitted to the DOE testing process, made a good-faith effort to provide necessary notice as practicable, and included in a formal response to the DOE copies of the energy-efficiency report and certification that were issued for the dehumidifier model at the time of production. The Company believes that its products are compliant, and the Company, in conjunction with its manufacturing partner, has disputed the Test Notice received from the DOE. As of the date of the issuance of the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements, the Company cannot reasonably estimate what, if any, penalties may be levied.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—In September 2019, the Company received notice from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) that certain of its dehumidifier products were identified by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) as failing to comply with EPA ENERGY STAR requirements.  For an appliance to be ENERGY STAR certified, it must meet standards promulgated by the EPA and enforced through EPA-accredited certification bodies and laboratories. The Company believes that its products are compliant, and the Company, in conjunction with its manufacturing partner, has disputed the AHAM testing determination pursuant to EPA guidelines. While a resolution remains pending, the Company is not selling or marketing the products identified by the EPA. The Company cannot be certain that these products will eventually be certified by the EPA, and the Company may incur costs that cannot presently be calculated in the event that the Company needs to make changes to the manner in which these products are manufactured and sold.

In April 2020, the Company received notice from the EPA with respect to regulatory compliance and the advertising associated with certain of its dehumidifier products. The Company believes that its products are compliant, and the Company is currently in discussions with the EPA to resolve the matter. The EPA has placed a hold on the sale of certain of the Company's dehumidifier inventory while it reviews the matter with the Company. As of October 2020, the Company is able to resume selling the products identified by the EPA, and discussions are continuing with the EPA. The Company cannot be certain of the outcome with the EPA, and the Company may incur costs and penalties that cannot presently be calculated in the event that the Company is unable to resolve this matter with the EPA.

Settlement Agreement—On May 2, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with one of the Company’s suppliers to agree to pay the amount of $3.0 million to the Company in three installments of $1.0 million each, with the first payment to be paid on or before May 31, 2021, the second payment to be paid on or before September 30, 2021, and the third payment to be paid on or before November 30, 2021.  Further, the supplier agreed to deliver certain goods as part of this settlement by September 30, 2021. Through the date of the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements, the supplier has not paid in full its required first payment of $1.0 million nor has it delivered the required quantity of goods. As such, the Company has fully reserved $4.1 million of prepaid asset within condensed consolidated financial statements during the nine months ended September 30, 2021. The Company has commenced legal action against the supplier and continues to reserve its legal options and rights on this matter.

Legal Proceedings—The Company is party to various actions and claims arising in the normal course of business. The Company does not believe that the final outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial position or results of operations. In addition, the Company maintains what it believes is adequate insurance coverage to further mitigate risk. However, no assurance can be given that the final outcome of such proceedings will not materially impact the Company’s condensed consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Further, no assurance can be given that the amount or scope of existing insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover losses arising from such matters.

Securities Class Action—On May 13, 2021, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Andrew Tate naming the Company as well as Yaniv Sarig, and Fabrice Hamaide as defendants. On June 10, 2021, a substantially similar securities class action complaint was filed in the same court by Jeff Coon against the same defendants.

Thereafter, other stockholders asserted similar claims. On August 10, 2021, the court appointed Joseph Nolff as the lead plaintiff of the putative class action, and on October 12, 2021, he filed an amended complaint, (i) adding Arturo Rodriguez as a defendant, (ii) asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (iii) claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and that this was revealed on May 4, 2021, when Culper Research published a report allegedly exposing these alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions. However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to the Company at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. 

Shareholder Derivative Actions Related to the Securities Class Action—On October 21 and 25, 2021, two shareholder derivative actions were filed on behalf of the Company by Shaoxuan Zhang and Michael Sheller in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, collectively, name Yaniv Sarig, Fabrice Hamaide, Arturo Rodriguez, Greg B. Petersen, Bari A. Harlam, Amy von Walter, and William Kurtz as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. These actions are predicated on substantively the same factual allegations contained in the above-described securities class action, and assert that the individual defendants (i) breached their fiduciary duties, (ii) misused their authority, (iii) were unjustly enriched and (iv) wasted corporate assets. The action filed by Michael Sheller also alleges that individual defendants Sarig and Hamaide are liable for contribution pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act in the event the Company is held liable in the Securities Class Action. The action filed by Shaoxuan Zhang alleges analogous liability on the part of Sarig, Hamaide and Rodriguez. Finally, the action filed by Shaoxuan Zhang also alleges that individual defendants Sarig, Harlam, Kurtz, Petersen and von Walter are liable for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these actions. However, the outcome of these legal proceedings are uncertain at this point. Based on information available to the Company at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss or income for these actions.

Sabby Contract Action—On September 20, 2021, Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd. (“Sabby”) sued the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, alleging that the Company breached the Securities Purchase Agreement , dated June 10, 2021 (the “Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which Sabby purchased 400,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, for an aggregate price of approximately $6 million. Sabby contends that certain of the representations and warranties made by the Company in the Purchase Agreement concerning its financial condition and the accuracy of its prior disclosures were untrue and that the Company breached the Purchase Agreement’s anti-dilution and use-of-proceeds covenants on both, August 9, 2021 and September 23, 2021, when the Company resolved certain defaults with High Trail. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to the Company at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.