Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events	Note 8. Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events Financial Condition and Liquidity As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a Credit Agreement with EnCap and a Purchase Agreement with RCA. The willingness of RCA to purchase our accounts receivable under the Purchase Agreement, and our ability to obtain additional financing, may be limited due to various factors, including the eligibility of our receivables, the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by EnCap, RCA, or other potential sources of financing. If we are unable to maintain the Purchase Agreement, we would need to obtain additional credit to fund our future operations. If credit is available in that event, lenders may impose more restrictive terms and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to maintain, extend, renew or replace the Purchase Agreement with a comparable arrangement or arrangements that provide similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results. While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact the availability under our credit arrangements. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize cash resources without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our cash resources without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on our cash resources, our financing arrangements, and therefore our liquidity: The Credit Agreement currently matures in January 2021, but we may extend the maturity to January 2022 at our election in accordance with the Fifth Amendment. Our ability to renew or refinance the Credit Agreement after January 2022 or to enter into a new credit facility to replace or supplement the Credit Agreement may be limited due to various factors, including the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by sources of financing. In addition, if credit is available, lenders may seek more restrictive covenants and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to extend, renew or replace the Credit Agreement beyond the current or ultimate maturity date of January 2022 (assuming we exercise all options to extend as provided by the Fifth Amendment) with a comparable credit facility that provides similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results. Management may determine that, in order to reduce capital and liquidity requirements, planned spending on capital projects and indirect expense growth may be curtailed, subject to growth in operating results. Additionally, management may seek to put in place a credit facility with a commercial bank, although no assurance can be given that such a facility could be put in place under terms acceptable to the Company. Should management determine that additional capital is required, management would likely look first to the sources of funding discussed above to meet any requirements or may seek to raise additional capital by selling equity, although no assurances can be given that these investors would be able to invest or that the Company and the investors would agree upon terms for such investments. Our working capital was $(14.8) million and $2.9 million as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. Our current working capital deficit is due to the classification of the EnCap Credit Agreement as a current liability as discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements, although the Fifth Amendment to the Credit Agreement provides us the option to extend the maturity of the agreement. We intend to consider exercising the option at the appropriate time. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that our financing arrangements with EnCap and RCA, collectively, and funds generated from operations are sufficient to maintain the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs for the next 12 months. Legal Proceedings Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. and Wynnefield Partners Small Cap Value, L.P.v. Telos Corporation, et al. As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of our Public Preferred Stock, instituted litigation against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers (“Telos Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Circuit Court”). A second holder of the Company’s Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. (“Wynnefield”), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R.C. Porter, a holder of the Company’s Class A common stock. As of March 31, 2020, Costa Brava and Wynnefield, directly and through affiliated funds, own 12.7% and 17.4%, respectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. On December 18, 2019, the Circuit Court filed three (3) Memorandum Opinions and entered four (4) Orders addressing all of the pending motions and open claims in the litigation and closing the case. First, the Circuit Court granted the Motion to Reconsider the Circuit Court’s March 30, 2006 order denying the Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by a number of the past and present directors and officers. The Circuit Court determined that the intervening appellate decision was binding legal precedent on a pertinent legal issue, and concluded that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the moving defendants. The Circuit Court entered an order dismissing the derivative claims against these defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. Second, the Circuit Court granted the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the derivative claims. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss relied on the conclusions in the final report of the Special Litigation Committee (SLC) that the derivative claims lacked merit and that it was not in the best interests of the Company to pursue them. The Circuit Court found, among other things, that the Telos Defendants had sustained their burden of proof to show that (i) the SLC was independent, (ii) the legal counsel for the SLC was independent, (iii) the SLC acted in good faith in conducting its investigation and reaching its conclusions, and (iv) the SLC conducted a reasonable investigation with factually supported conclusions. The Circuit Court also determined that the procedural mechanism the Telos Defendants had utilized to present the issue to the Circuit Court — proceedings under Maryland Rule 2-502 — was an appropriate procedural vehicle to use for this issue. The Circuit Court entered an order granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and ordering the dismissal of the derivative claims on the merits. Third, the Circuit Court granted Mr. Porter’s Motion to Dismiss based on a lack of minimum contacts with the State of Maryland, and entered an order dismissing the claim for shareholder oppression against Mr. Porter for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the Circuit Court entered a separate order concluding that all claims in the Third Amended Complaint had been dismissed by various orders of the Court dated June 6, 2007, January 7, 2008, April 15, 2008, and December 18, 2019, and further ordering the Clerk of the Court to close the case with costs to be paid by Plaintiffs. Costa Brava noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on January 17, 2020 from the Circuit Court’s final judgment. Co-plaintiff Wynnefield elected not to note or pursue an appeal. Prior to any briefing by the parties, Costa Brava voluntarily filed a notice dismissing its appeal on May 12, 2020. The dismissal of the appeal by Costa Brava fully concludes this long-pending litigation. Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, since August 2, 2007, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot (“Hamot”) and Andrew R. Siegel (“Siegel”), principals of Costa Brava, have been involved in litigation against the Company as Plaintiffs and Counter-defendants in the Circuit Court. Mr. Siegel is a Class D Director of the Company and Mr. Hamot was a Class D Director of the Company until his resignation on March 9, 2018. The Plaintiffs initially alleged that certain documents and records had not been provided to them promptly and were necessary to fulfill their duties as directors of the Company. Subsequently, Hamot and Siegel further alleged that the Company had failed to follow certain provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes and, additionally, that Mr. Wood’s service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company’s Bylaws. On April 23, 2008, the Company filed a counterclaim against Hamot and Siegel for money damages and preliminary and injunctive relief based upon Hamot and Siegel’s interference with, and improper influence of, the Company’s independent auditors regarding, among other things, a specific accounting treatment. On June 27, 2008, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined Hamot and Siegel from contacting the Company’s auditors until the completion of the Company’s Form 10-K for the preceding year, which injunction later expired by its own terms. As previously disclosed, trial on Hamot and Siegel’s claims and the Company’s counterclaims took place in July through September, 2013, and the Court subsequently issued decisions on the various claims by way of memorandum opinions and orders dated September 11, 2017. The Company’s subsequent appeal of the amount of damages awarded to it for Hamot and Siegel’s intentional interference with the relationships with its former auditor was ultimately dismissed by way of the Mandate issued by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on October 11, 2019. Hamot and Siegel at various times in this litigation have sought to be indemnified or to be awarded advancement of various attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by them in this litigation. No claim for indemnification is pending as of the reporting date. There have been no material developments in connection with this litigation during the three months ended March 31, 2020. At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Company’s success in relation to any possible further claim by Hamot and Siegel for indemnification for certain attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in this litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter and oppose any claim for indemnification if it is pursued. Other Litigation In addition, the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 8. Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events

Financial Condition and Liquidity

As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a Credit Agreement with EnCap and a Purchase Agreement with RCA. The willingness of RCA to purchase our accounts receivable under the Purchase Agreement, and our ability to obtain additional financing, may be limited due to various factors, including the eligibility of our receivables, the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by EnCap, RCA, or other potential sources of financing. If we are unable to maintain the Purchase Agreement, we would need to obtain additional credit to fund our future operations. If credit is available in that event, lenders may impose more restrictive terms and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to maintain, extend, renew or replace the Purchase Agreement with a comparable arrangement or arrangements that provide similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results.

While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact the availability under our credit arrangements. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize cash resources without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our cash resources without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on our cash resources, our financing arrangements, and therefore our liquidity: The Credit Agreement currently matures in January 2021, but we may extend the maturity to January 2022 at our election in accordance with the Fifth Amendment. Our ability to renew or refinance the Credit Agreement after January 2022 or to enter into a new credit facility to replace or supplement the Credit Agreement may be limited due to various factors, including the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by sources of financing. In addition, if credit is available, lenders may seek more restrictive covenants and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to extend, renew or replace the Credit Agreement beyond the current or ultimate maturity date of January 2022 (assuming we exercise all options to extend as provided by the Fifth Amendment) with a comparable credit facility that provides similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results.

Management may determine that, in order to reduce capital and liquidity requirements, planned spending on capital projects and indirect expense growth may be curtailed, subject to growth in operating results. Additionally, management may seek to put in place a credit facility with a commercial bank, although no assurance can be given that such a facility could be put in place under terms acceptable to the Company. Should management determine that additional capital is required, management would likely look first to the sources of funding discussed above to meet any requirements or may seek to raise additional capital by selling equity, although no assurances can be given that these investors would be able to invest or that the Company and the investors would agree upon terms for such investments.

Our working capital was $(14.8) million and $2.9 million as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. Our current working capital deficit is due to the classification of the EnCap Credit Agreement as a current liability as discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements, although the Fifth Amendment to the Credit Agreement provides us the option to extend the maturity of the agreement. We intend to consider exercising the option at the appropriate time. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that our financing arrangements with EnCap and RCA, collectively, and funds generated from operations are sufficient to maintain the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs for the next 12 months.

Legal Proceedings

Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. and Wynnefield Partners Small Cap Value, L.P.v. Telos Corporation, et al.

As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of our Public Preferred Stock, instituted litigation against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers (“Telos Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Circuit Court”). A second holder of the Company’s Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. (“Wynnefield”), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R.C. Porter, a holder of the Company’s Class A common stock. As of March 31, 2020, Costa Brava and Wynnefield, directly and through affiliated funds, own 12.7% and 17.4%, respectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock.

On December 18, 2019, the Circuit Court filed three (3) Memorandum Opinions and entered four (4) Orders addressing all of the pending motions and open claims in the litigation and closing the case. First, the Circuit Court granted the Motion to Reconsider the Circuit Court’s March 30, 2006 order denying the Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by a number of the past and present directors and officers. The Circuit Court determined that the intervening appellate decision was binding legal precedent on a pertinent legal issue, and concluded that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the moving defendants. The Circuit Court entered an order dismissing the derivative claims against these defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Second, the Circuit Court granted the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the derivative claims. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss relied on the conclusions in the final report of the Special Litigation Committee (SLC) that the derivative claims lacked merit and that it was not in the best interests of the Company to pursue them. The Circuit Court found, among other things, that the Telos Defendants had sustained their burden of proof to show that (i) the SLC was independent, (ii) the legal counsel for the SLC was independent, (iii) the SLC acted in good faith in conducting its investigation and reaching its conclusions, and (iv) the SLC conducted a reasonable investigation with factually supported conclusions. The Circuit Court also determined that the procedural mechanism the Telos Defendants had utilized to present the issue to the Circuit Court — proceedings under Maryland Rule 2-502 — was an appropriate procedural vehicle to use for this issue. The Circuit Court entered an order granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and ordering the dismissal of the derivative claims on the merits.

Third, the Circuit Court granted Mr. Porter’s Motion to Dismiss based on a lack of minimum contacts with the State of Maryland, and entered an order dismissing the claim for shareholder oppression against Mr. Porter for lack of jurisdiction.

Finally, the Circuit Court entered a separate order concluding that all claims in the Third Amended Complaint had been dismissed by various orders of the Court dated June 6, 2007, January 7, 2008, April 15, 2008, and December 18, 2019, and further ordering the Clerk of the Court to close the case with costs to be paid by Plaintiffs.

Costa Brava noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on January 17, 2020 from the Circuit Court’s final judgment. Co-plaintiff Wynnefield elected not to note or pursue an appeal. Prior to any briefing by the parties, Costa Brava voluntarily filed a notice dismissing its appeal on May 12, 2020. The dismissal of the appeal by Costa Brava fully concludes this long-pending litigation.

Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation

As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, since August 2, 2007, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot (“Hamot”) and Andrew R. Siegel (“Siegel”), principals of Costa Brava, have been involved in litigation against the Company as Plaintiffs and Counter-defendants in the Circuit Court. Mr. Siegel is a Class D Director of the Company and Mr. Hamot was a Class D Director of the Company until his resignation on March 9, 2018. The Plaintiffs initially alleged that certain documents and records had not been provided to them promptly and were necessary to fulfill their duties as directors of the Company. Subsequently, Hamot and Siegel further alleged that the Company had failed to follow certain provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes and, additionally, that Mr. Wood’s service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company’s Bylaws. On April 23, 2008, the Company filed a counterclaim against Hamot and Siegel for money damages and preliminary and injunctive relief based upon Hamot and Siegel’s interference with, and improper influence of, the Company’s independent auditors regarding, among other things, a specific accounting treatment. On June 27, 2008, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined Hamot and Siegel from contacting the Company’s auditors until the completion of the Company’s Form 10-K for the preceding year, which injunction later expired by its own terms. As previously disclosed, trial on Hamot and Siegel’s claims and the Company’s counterclaims took place in July through September, 2013, and the Court subsequently issued decisions on the various claims by way of memorandum opinions and orders dated September 11, 2017. The Company’s subsequent appeal of the amount of damages awarded to it for Hamot and Siegel’s intentional interference with the relationships with its former auditor was ultimately dismissed by way of the Mandate issued by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on October 11, 2019.

Hamot and Siegel at various times in this litigation have sought to be indemnified or to be awarded advancement of various attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by them in this litigation. No claim for indemnification is pending as of the reporting date.

There have been no material developments in connection with this litigation during the three months ended March 31, 2020.

At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Company’s success in relation to any possible further claim by Hamot and Siegel for indemnification for certain attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in this litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter and oppose any claim for indemnification if it is pursued.

Other Litigation

In addition, the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.