COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingent Liabilities

The Company records an accrual for contingent liabilities when a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If some amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount is accrued. When no amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount, the lowest amount in the range is accrued.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings which arise in the ordinary course of business. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. We are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that we believe will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results except as set forth below:

Association of Apartment Owners of Poipu Point v. Arcadia, Inc., et. al.

At the closing of the Arcadia acquisition, Arcadia was a defendant in a products liability matter brought by the Association of Apartment Owners of Poipu Point relating to Arcadia products sold to a project in Hawaii. The case is proceeding in the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. This matter relates to a product liability claim brought against Arcadia and others alleging that Arcadia windows and sliding glass doors have suffered significant deterioration and corrosion in ocean facing applications at a timeshare project at Poipu Point in Kauai, Hawaii. On January 22, 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement related to the case, which provided for the resolution of the case involving Arcadia in exchange for the payment of $4,300 by Arcadia. This amount was included within liabilities assumed at the date of acquisition. The settlement agreement was approved by the court on April 14, 2022, and payment of the settlement amount is due by May 13, 2022. It is anticipated that approximately $1,000 of the settlement amount will be paid by Arcadia’s insurance carriers. This amount was included within assets acquired at the date of acquisition. The remaining $3,300 will be funded by Arcadia. DMC obtained a purchase price reduction under the Equity Purchase Agreement for its share of the $3,300 relating to this matter.

Wage and Hour Matters

Felipe v. Arcadia, Inc. and One Stop Employment Services, Inc. (“One Stop”). This complaint was filed on October 22, 2021 in Los Angeles Superior Court and purports to allege a class action on behalf of all non-exempt California employees who worked on behalf of One Stop or Arcadia at any time during the four years preceding the date of the complaint. One Stop is a staffing agency which provides temporary workers, including to Arcadia. The complaint states claims under California’s labor laws and under its general Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business & Professions Code section 17200. The plaintiff also filed a letter with the California Labor and Workforce Department under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). In February, the claims were amended to remove class action and individual claims in favor of arbitration on an individual, non-class basis, with the plaintiff also asserting representative claims under PAGA. The parties have agreed to stay the remaining PAGA claims pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. versus Moriana, which relates to the ability of plaintiffs to bring representative claims where a binding arbitration agreement exists. The Viking River case was argued in March, and the parties anticipate a ruling in the next few months. Plaintiff has not yet commenced arbitration of her individual claims.

Mayorga v. Arcadia, Inc. This complaint was filed on November 15, 2021 in Los Angeles Superior Court. It purports to allege a class action on behalf of all of the Company’s non-exempt California employees who worked at the Company within four years before the date the complaint was filed. It asserts claims substantially similar to those asserted in the Felipe case but does not include One Stop as a defendant. As in Felipe, the plaintiff has amended his complaint to delete class action claims and any individual non-PAGA claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is now limited, like the Felipe complaint, to PAGA collective action claims. As in Felipe, Plaintiff has agreed to stay those PAGA claims pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. versus Moriana. Plaintiff has however commenced arbitration on a solely individual basis of his wage and hour claims. The arbitral body has appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate those claims, but no hearing or other dates have yet been set.

Arcadia intends to vigorously defend against both the Felipe and Mayorga actions. Due to the nature of these matters and inherent uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of

the amount or range of potential loss, if any. Further, under the Equity Purchase Agreement, certain amounts have been placed in escrow pending resolution of these matters.