Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

12. Commitments and Contingencies

Weiner, Denham, Allen, and Witmer Lawsuits

On November 6, 2017, United Healthcare issued a press release announcing expansion of its fitness benefits (“United Press Release”), and the market price of the Company's shares of Common Stock dropped on that same day. In connection with the United Press Release, four lawsuits were filed against the Company. As further described below, three of the four lawsuits have been dismissed.  We are currently not able to predict the probable outcome of the remaining matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any.  We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the remaining complaint.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company’s Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3, 2017 (“Weiner Lawsuit”).  The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press Release.  The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.  On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and established certain deadlines for the case.  On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.   The Court denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019 and the Company’s Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019. The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.

On January 26, 2018, Charles Denham, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a purported shareholder derivative action, on behalf of the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the Company as a nominal defendant and the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer, a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer, current directors and a former director of the Company, as defendants (“Denham Lawsuit”).  The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment, largely tracking allegations in the Weiner Lawsuit.  The complaint further alleged that certain defendants engaged in insider trading.  The plaintiff sought monetary damages on behalf of the Company, certain corporate governance and internal procedural reforms, and other equitable relief. On October 22, 2019, the Denham Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

On August 24, 2018, Andrew H. Allen, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a purported shareholder derivative action, on behalf of the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the Company as a nominal defendant and the Company’s chief executive officer, chief financial officer, a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer, together with nine current or former directors, as defendants (“Allen Lawsuit”).  The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and the Exchange Act against all individual defendants, largely tracking allegations in the Weiner Lawsuit and Denham Lawsuit, and breach of fiduciary duty for insider trading against a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer and one of the directors of the Company.  The plaintiff sought to recover damages on behalf of the Company, certain corporate governance and internal procedural reforms, and other equitable relief, including restitution from the two defendants alleged to have engaged in insider trading from all unlawfully obtained profits.  On October 15, 2018, the Allen Lawsuit and the Denham Lawsuit were consolidated by stipulation.  On June 14, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims and the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2019. On October 22, 2019, the Allen Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

On March 25, 2019, Colleen Witmer, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a purported shareholder derivative action, on behalf of the Company, in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, naming the Company as a nominal defendant and the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer, a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer, chief legal and administrative officer, certain current directors, and two former directors of the Company, as defendants. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, largely tracking allegations in the Denham Lawsuit.  The complaint further alleged that certain defendants engaged in insider trading.  The plaintiff sought monetary damages on behalf of the Company, restitution, certain corporate governance and internal procedural reforms, and other equitable relief. With the agreement of the parties, the Tennessee Supreme Court transferred the case to the Business Court Pilot Project. On June 4, 2019, the Company, as nominal defendant, filed a motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of the consolidated Allen and Denham Lawsuits.  On October 24, 2019, the plaintiff dismissed the case without prejudice.

Pacific Packaging Lawsuit

On May 31, 2019, Pacific Packaging Concepts, Inc. (“Pacific Packaging”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, naming as defendants two subsidiaries of the Company; Nutrisystem, Inc. and Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. (“Pacific Packaging Lawsuit”). In its complaint, Pacific Packaging alleged that the defendants’ use of Pacific Packaging’s federally registered trademark, Fresh Start, in advertisements for its weight management program and shakes constitutes federal trademark infringement, counterfeit trademark infringement, false designation of origin, federal trademark dilution, unfair competition, false advertising, common law unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  On August 29, 2019, the defendants filed their Answer to Complaint. Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of the case, we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this complaint.

Other

Additionally, from time to time, we are subject to contractual disputes, claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business.  Some of the legal proceedings pending against us as of the date of this report are expected to be covered by insurance policies.  As these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, our view of these matters may change in the future.  We expense legal costs as incurred.