XML 39 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.1.9
Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies
11.
Contingencies
 
The Company filed a civil complaint on February 17, 2010 in the U.S. District Court (SD, Cal) against Barry Minkow and the Fraud Discovery Institute, Inc. (collectively, “Minkow”), iBusiness Reporting, and its editor William Lobdell, Tracy Coenen and Sequence, Inc. (collectively, “Coenen”), “Zee Yourself”, and Robert L. Fitzpatrick (“FitzPatrick”) for defamation, market manipulation and unfair business practices, alleging a scheme of market manipulation of Medifast stock for Defendants’ for monetary gain, and damaging the business reputation of Medifast and its Take Shape For Life division. Bradley T. MacDonald, former Executive Chairman of Medifast and a stockholder, joined the lawsuit individually.  The lawsuit seeks $270 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and ancillary relief.  In March 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part certain Anti-SLAPP Motions to Strike (i.e. motions to dismiss) previously filed by all Defendants.  The Company appealed that portion of the District Court’s ruling which dismissed its defamation claims against Minkow and Coenen in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Defendant FitzPatrick’s motion was denied as to the Company’s defamation claim, and FitzPatrick appealed that portion of the Court’s ruling.  On June 4, 2014, the Panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision, denying FitzPatrick’s appeal and remanding to the District Court for further consideration; reversing the District Court’s decision as to Minkow and remanding for further consideration; denying MacDonald’s appeal in its entirety; and denying Medifast’s appeal as to Coenen.  On September 26, 2014, the District Court obtained jurisdiction of the case once again and the parties set a briefing schedule on the outstanding issues remanded by the Ninth Circuit. Coenen filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, which Medifast has opposed. The Court issued an Order on the motion, granting it in part and denying it in part, on March 24, 2015. Judgment was entered on behalf of Coenen on April 21, 2015.
 
The Company entered into guarantee agreements with two key franchisee partners in order to support them obtaining additional funding to expand their business into new markets. This is in line with the Company’s long-term strategy of expanding the franchise business utilizing knowledgeable franchise partners. The loans associated with these agreements have been paid in full. The first guarantee provides financial coverage for a $1.0 million loan and a $1.0 million line of credit. The variable rate term loan has a 2 year term expiring in September 2015; payment calculations assume a 7 year amortization with a balloon payment due at the end of the term. The line of credit has a two year term expiring in September 2015. The franchisee associated with these loans failed to pay the monthly obligations and the Company paid off the loans in April 2015. The Company is a secondary guarantor on the loan and line of credit and has pursued personal recourse against the franchise owner. The second guarantee provides financial coverage for a $1.4 million loan and was paid in full in March 2015. The variable rate term loan has a 2 year term expiring in October 2015; payment calculations assume a 7 year amortization with a balloon payment due at the end of the term. The Company is the third guarantor on these loans and has recourse against another entity owned by the franchisee and the franchisee owner(s) themselves should it be deemed necessary.