XML 36 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.2
Commitment and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies  Commitments and Contingencies
The Company’s facilities are subject to federal, state and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment. Compliance with these provisions has not had, nor does the Company expect such compliance to have, any material effect upon the capital expenditures, net income, financial condition or competitive position of the Company. Management believes that its current practices and procedures for the control and disposition of such materials comply with the applicable federal and state requirements.
Legal Matters
Federal Securities Litigation
On July 8, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder Daniel Erdman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that CarLotz and certain of its executive officers made various false and misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, financial performance and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. See Daniel Erdman v. CarLotz, Inc., et al., 21-cv-5906 (S.D.N.Y.) The action is stated to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp. and CarLotz during the period from December 30, 2020 to May 25, 2021. The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ purported violations of the federal securities laws, plus interest and costs and expenses.
On July 20, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder Michael Widuck, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that CarLotz and certain of its executive officers made various false and misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, financial performance and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. See Michael Widuck v. CarLotz, Inc., et al., 21-cv-6191 (S.D.N.Y.). The action is stated to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp. and CarLotz during the period from December 30, 2020 to May 25, 2021. The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ purported violations of the federal securities laws, plus interest and costs and expenses.
On August 5, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder Michael Turk, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that CarLotz and certain of its executive officers made various false and misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, financial performance and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. See Michael Turk v. CarLotz, Inc., et al., 21-cv-6627 (S.D.N.Y.) The action is stated to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp. and CarLotz during the period from December 30, 2020 to May 25, 2021. The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ purported violations of the federal securities laws, plus interest and costs and expenses.
The above three cases were consolidated by the Court on August 31, 2021 under In re CarLotz, Inc. Sec. Litig., 21-cv-05906 (S.D.N.Y.). On October 15, 2021, the Court appointed David Berger lead plaintiff and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC lead counsel for the putative class. On December 14, 2021, Lead Plaintiff Berger and Additional Plaintiff Craig Bailey filed an Amended Complaint against CarLotz, various directors and officers of CarLotz, Acamar, various directors of Acamar, Acamar Partners Sponsor I LLC, and Acamar Partners Sub, Inc., purporting to assert claims on behalf of purchasers of Acamar and CarLotz securities during the period from October 22, 2020 through May 25, 2021. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made various false and misleading statements or omissions about CarLotz’ business, operations, financial performance and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The Amended Complaint sought a declaration that it is a proper class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as well as unspecified compensatory damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ purported violations of the federal securities laws, plus interest and costs and expenses, and any further relief that the Court may deem proper.
On February 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Letter Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, citing the need “to resolve certain factual and legal issues bearing on the viability of certain of plaintiffs’ claims and named defendants.” On February 18, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ letter motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and ordered that the Second Amended Complaint be filed by March 4, 2022.
On March 4, 2022, Lead Plaintiff Berger and Additional Plaintiff Bailey filed a Second Amended Complaint against CarLotz, various directors and officers of CarLotz, Acamar, various directors of Acamar, and Acamar Partners Sponsor I LLC, purporting to assert claims on behalf of purchasers of Acamar and CarLotz securities during the period from October 22, 2020 through May 25, 2021. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made various false and misleading statements or omissions about CarLotz’ business, operations, financial performance and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The Second Amended Complaint seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as well as unspecified compensatory damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ purported violations of the federal securities laws, plus interest and costs and expenses, and any further relief that the Court may deem proper. On June 21, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is ongoing.
Delaware Stockholder Derivative Litigation
On September 21, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder W. Kenmore Cardoza, trustee of the W. Kenmore & Joyce M. Cardoza Revocable Trust, filed a derivative suit purportedly on behalf of CarLotz in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against certain officers and directors of CarLotz. See Cardoza v. Mitchell, et al., 21-cv-1332 (D. Del.). The complaint, which principally concerns the same alleged misstatements or omissions at issue in In re CarLotz, Inc. Sec. Litig., asserts derivative claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty and waste. The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company, an award of costs and expenses, and other relief. On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting derivative claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment.

On March 31, 2022, purported CarLotz stockholder Mohammad Osman filed a derivative suit purportedly on behalf of CarLotz in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against certain officers and directors of CarLotz. See Osman v. Bor, et al., 22-cv-0431 (D. Del.). The complaint, which principally concerns the same alleged misstatements or omissions at issue in In re CarLotz, Inc. Sec. Litig., asserts derivative claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company, an award of costs and expenses, and other relief.

On June 16, 2022, the Court issued an order consolidating the Cardoza and Osman actions under the caption In re CarLotz, Inc. S’holder Deriv. Litig., 21-cv-1332, and appointing co-lead counsel. On July 13, 2022, the Court so-ordered the parties’ stipulation, staying the consolidated action pending the resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in In re CarLotz, Inc. Sec. Litig.
New York Stockholder Derivative Litigation
On October 20, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder Julian Cha filed a derivative suit purportedly on behalf of CarLotz in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain officers and directors of CarLotz. See Julian Cha v. David R. Mitchell, et al., 21-cv-8623 (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which principally concerns the same alleged misstatements or omissions at issue in In re CarLotz, Inc. Sec. Litig., asserts derivative claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste. The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company, an award of costs and expenses and other relief.
On October 27, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder Mark Habib filed a derivative suit purportedly on behalf of CarLotz in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain officers and directors of CarLotz. See Mark Habib v. David R. Mitchell, et al., 21-cv-8786 (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which principally concerns the same alleged misstatements or omissions at issue in In re CarLotz, Inc. Sec. Litig., asserts derivative claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company, an award of costs and expenses and other relief.
On November 15, 2021, the Court issued an order¸ inter alia, consolidating Cha and Habib under In re CarLotz, Inc. Deriv. Litig., 21-cv-8623 and appointing co-lead counsel. On February 15, 2022, the Court so-ordered the parties’ stipulation, staying the consolidated action pending the resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in In re CarLotz, Inc. Sec. Litig.
In addition to the matters above, the Company is involved in certain legal matters that it considers incidental to its business. In management’s opinion, none of these legal matters will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.