Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	18. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation Risk From time to time, the Company may become involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate liability, if any, from these actions will not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. The Company is currently involved in litigation described below with one of the Company’s stockholders, Dr. Gary S. Donovitz (“Donovitz”) (the “Donovitz Litigation”). The outcome of the Donovitz Litigation, regardless of the merits, is inherently uncertain. At this point in time, the Company cannot predict the length of the Donovitz Litigation or the ultimate liability, if any, which may arise therefrom. In addition, litigation and related matters are costly and may divert the attention of the Company’s management and other resources that would otherwise be engaged in other activities. However, the Donovitz Litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated results of operations or financial position of the Company. On June 23, 2022, Donovitz sued Haymaker Sponsor, LLC, the Company’s outside legal counsel, and certain Company executive officers and directors in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Donovitz alleges that the defendants made a variety of false promises regarding Donovitz’s future role in the Company, the protection of Donovitz’s interests, and the continuance of Donovitz’s seminars and training programs subsequent to the completion of the Business Combination. Otherwise, Donovitz claims he would not have agreed to the arrangements that led to the completion of the Business Combination and related transactions. Donovitz generally alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breaches of fiduciary duties against the defendants (the “Donovitz Claims”). Donovitz seeks monetary relief exceeding $1.0 million, including, but not limited to, actual damages, damages to be determined at trial, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief such as profit disgorgement, fee forfeiture, recession, and constructive trust. While not a direct party to the lawsuit, the Company believes that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intends to participate in the defense of the litigation. On July 11, 2022, the Company sued Donovitz in the Delaware Court of Chancery, pursuing injunctive relief to prevent Donovitz from proceeding with the litigation over the Donovitz Claims in Texas. The Company seeks to enforce (a) the Company’s certificate of incorporation, which mandates that stockholders must bring certain actions, including some or all of the Donovitz Claims, exclusively in Delaware, and (b) the Business Combination Agreement, by which Donovitz consented to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Delaware Court of Chancery and agreed that Delaware law governs any related claims, including some or all of the Donovitz Claims. Pending a ruling from the Delaware Court of Chancery, Donovitz agreed to stay all answer dates in that lawsuit in Texas. Then, on March 23, 2023, Donovitz filed an amended answer and counterclaims alleging what appear to be the same as the Donovitz Claims originally filed in Texas. On August 2, 2022, the Company sued Donovitz, Lani Hammonds Donovitz, and Lani D. Consulting in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, seeking injunctive relief to enforce non-disparagement obligations of that certain founder advisory agreement with Donovitz and the independent contractor agreement with Lani Hammonds Donovitz, both of which were entered into by the subject parties in connection with the Business Combination. On August 23, 2022, the defendants filed an answer, which included affirmative defenses to the Company’s claims and certain counterclaims and third-party claims against certain executive officers of the Company. The affirmative defenses included repudiation, fraud, breach of contract, unclean hands, and laches. The counterclaims and third-party claims included claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and defamation, as well as other related claims. The Company successfully obtained a temporary restraining order to enforce the non-disparagement obligations of Donovitz and Lani Hammonds Donovitz. The parties subsequently entered into an agreed order that the temporary restraining order will stay in effect until the entry of a final judgment. A jury trial was scheduled to commence on January 3, 2023, to address the Company’s request for a permanent injunction, as well as adjudicate the affirmative defenses, with all remaining claims, counterclaims and third-party claims to be tried at a later date. After the filing of this lawsuit, the Company amended its claim in the Delaware Court of Chancery to also seek an injunction to prevent Donovitz from proceeding with certain of the affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and third-party claims filed by the defendants on August 23, 2022. On November 4, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied that request for injunctive relief, permitting the Texas lawsuit filed by the Company and all affirmative defenses and claims asserted therein to proceed in Texas. Subsequently, the parties agreed that the trial on the Company’s claim for breach of contract, including its request for a permanent injunction, will be consolidated with a trial on the previously filed counterclaims and third-party claims. Prior to that agreement being reached, Donovitz and Lani Hammonds Donovitz filed an amended pleading which did not include any of their previously asserted affirmative defenses or assert any new affirmative defenses. It was also agreed that if Donovitz and or Lani Hammonds Donovitz seek leave to add any affirmative defenses before the final trial, at most they would be allowed to assert laches, unclean hands or mistake, and only if they can convince the trial court that any or all of those affirmative defenses would have qualified as claims that could have been non suited at the time they filed their amended pleading asserting no affirmative defenses. A jury trial is scheduled to commence on September 11, 2023. The temporary restraining order entered against Gary Donovitz and Lani Hammonds Donovitz remains in effect until the entry of a final judgment. Tax Distributions To the extent the Company has funds legally available, the board of directors will approve distributions to each stockholder on a quarterly basis, in an amount per share that, when added to all other distributions made to such stockholder with respect to the previous calendar year, equals the estimated federal and state income tax liabilities applicable to such stockholder as the result of its, his or her ownership of the units and the associated net taxable income allocated with respect to such units for the previous calendar year.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

18.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation Risk

From time to time, the Company may become involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate liability, if any, from these actions will not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

The Company is currently involved in litigation described below with one of the Company’s stockholders, Dr. Gary S. Donovitz (“Donovitz”) (the “Donovitz Litigation”). The outcome of the Donovitz Litigation, regardless of the merits, is inherently uncertain. At this point in time, the Company cannot predict the length of the Donovitz Litigation or the ultimate liability, if any, which may arise therefrom. In addition, litigation and related matters are costly and may divert the attention of the Company’s management and other resources that would otherwise be engaged in other activities. However, the Donovitz Litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated results of operations or financial position of the Company.

On June 23, 2022, Donovitz sued Haymaker Sponsor, LLC, the Company’s outside legal counsel, and certain Company executive officers and directors in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Donovitz alleges that the defendants made a variety of false promises regarding Donovitz’s future role in the Company, the protection of Donovitz’s interests, and the continuance of Donovitz’s seminars and training programs subsequent to the completion of the Business Combination. Otherwise, Donovitz claims he would not have agreed to the arrangements that led to the completion of the Business Combination and related transactions. Donovitz generally

alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breaches of fiduciary duties against the defendants (the “Donovitz Claims”). Donovitz seeks monetary relief exceeding $1.0 million, including, but not limited to, actual damages, damages to be determined at trial, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief such as profit disgorgement, fee forfeiture, recession, and constructive trust. While not a direct party to the lawsuit, the Company believes that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intends to participate in the defense of the litigation.

On July 11, 2022, the Company sued Donovitz in the Delaware Court of Chancery, pursuing injunctive relief to prevent Donovitz from proceeding with the litigation over the Donovitz Claims in Texas. The Company seeks to enforce (a) the Company’s certificate of incorporation, which mandates that stockholders must bring certain actions, including some or all of the Donovitz Claims, exclusively in Delaware, and (b) the Business Combination Agreement, by which Donovitz consented to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Delaware Court of Chancery and agreed that Delaware law governs any related claims, including some or all of the Donovitz Claims. Pending a ruling from the Delaware Court of Chancery, Donovitz agreed to stay all answer dates in that lawsuit in Texas. Then, on March 23, 2023, Donovitz filed an amended answer and counterclaims alleging what appear to be the same as the Donovitz Claims originally filed in Texas.

On August 2, 2022, the Company sued Donovitz, Lani Hammonds Donovitz, and Lani D. Consulting in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, seeking injunctive relief to enforce non-disparagement obligations of that certain founder advisory agreement with Donovitz and the independent contractor agreement with Lani Hammonds Donovitz, both of which were entered into by the subject parties in connection with the Business Combination.

On August 23, 2022, the defendants filed an answer, which included affirmative defenses to the Company’s claims and certain counterclaims and third-party claims against certain executive officers of the Company. The affirmative defenses included repudiation, fraud, breach of contract, unclean hands, and laches.

The counterclaims and third-party claims included claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and defamation, as well as other related claims.

The Company successfully obtained a temporary restraining order to enforce the non-disparagement obligations of Donovitz and Lani Hammonds Donovitz. The parties subsequently entered into an agreed order that the temporary restraining order will stay in effect until the entry of a final judgment.

A jury trial was scheduled to commence on January 3, 2023, to address the Company’s request for a permanent injunction, as well as adjudicate the affirmative defenses, with all remaining claims, counterclaims and third-party claims to be tried at a later date.

After the filing of this lawsuit, the Company amended its claim in the Delaware Court of Chancery to also seek an injunction to prevent Donovitz from proceeding with certain of the affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and third-party claims filed by the defendants on August 23, 2022. On November 4, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied that request for injunctive relief, permitting the Texas lawsuit filed by the Company and all affirmative defenses and claims asserted therein to proceed in Texas.

Subsequently, the parties agreed that the trial on the Company’s claim for breach of contract, including its request for a permanent injunction, will be consolidated with a trial on the previously filed counterclaims and third-party claims. Prior to that agreement being reached, Donovitz and Lani Hammonds Donovitz filed an amended pleading which did not include any of their previously asserted affirmative defenses or assert any new affirmative defenses. It was also agreed that if Donovitz and or Lani Hammonds Donovitz seek leave to add any affirmative defenses before the final trial, at most they would be allowed to assert laches, unclean hands or mistake, and only if they can convince the trial court that any or all of those affirmative defenses would have qualified as claims that could have been non suited at the time they filed their amended pleading asserting no affirmative defenses. A jury trial is scheduled to commence on September 11, 2023. The temporary restraining order entered against Gary Donovitz and Lani Hammonds Donovitz remains in effect until the entry of a final judgment.

Tax Distributions

To the extent the Company has funds legally available, the board of directors will approve distributions to each stockholder on a quarterly basis, in an amount per share that, when added to all other distributions made to such stockholder with respect to the previous calendar year, equals the estimated federal and state income tax liabilities applicable to such stockholder as the result of its, his or her ownership of the units and the associated net taxable income allocated with respect to such units for the previous calendar year.