|
18. Commitments and Contingencies
The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in various lawsuits relating to routine matters incidental to their business. As with all litigation, no assurance can be provided as to the outcome of the following matters and litigation inherently involves significant costs.
On February 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr filed a purported class action complaint against STN and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-00141 (the "Federal Court Action"). The plaintiffs are all former employees of the Predecessor. The complaint alleged that STN and its subsidiaries (i) failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, (ii) failed to pay overtime, (iii) failed to timely pay wages and (iv) unlawfully converted certain earned wages. The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.
On October 31, 2008, STN filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. During a hearing on that motion, the United States District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. After briefing regarding the jurisdiction question, on May 16, 2009, the United States District Court dismissed the Federal Court Action for lack of jurisdiction and entered a judgment in Predecessor's favor. Subsequently, on July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint against STN and certain of its subsidiaries in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-09-595614-C (the "State Court Action"). The complaint in the State Court Action alleged substantially the same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal Court Action.
On August 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than STN, filed an answer responding to the complaint. Subsequently, on August 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than STN, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action pending the resolution of STN's chapter 11 case. That motion was granted on September 30, 2009.
On or about April 30, 2010, Predecessor and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to settle all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the State Court Action. Under the terms of the settlement:
-
a. Persons who were employed by STN or its subsidiaries at any time between February 4, 2005 and January 28, 2009 will have an aggregate allowed $5 million general unsecured claim in STN's bankruptcy.
b. STN would set aside approximately $1.3 million in an interest-bearing bank account. After the deduction of fees, costs and other expenses associated with the settlement, the remaining proceeds would be distributed equally to all persons who were employed by STN or its subsidiaries at any time between January 29, 2009 and the date of the preliminary approval of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Court.
On June 17, 2010, the State Court Action was removed to the Bankruptcy Court by agreement of the parties.
On July 16, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and directed the parties to provide notice to the current and former employees covered by the State Court Action of their right to object to the settlement and/or be excluded therefrom. No objections to the settlement were filed.
On October 26, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted final approval of the settlement. The proceeds referenced in paragraph (b) above were distributed in full on December 10, 2010.
The expense related to this legal settlement was accrued during the year ended December 31, 2010 and the related liability was classified in liabilities subject to compromise in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Predecessor.
Pursuant to the Joint Plan of Reorganization, among other things, general unsecured creditors, including the employees referenced in paragraph (a) above, were to receive warrants referred to in the Plan as the NPH Warrants. On December 13, 2010, Predecessor filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court asking that the Plan be modified so that it would not need to distribute an NPH Warrant worth approximately 13¢ to each of the employees referenced in paragraph (a) above (the "Plan Modification Motion"). On January 21, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the relief sought in the Plan Modification Motion. Successor assumed no liability related to the case.
Through the Effective Date, the Debtors conducted their businesses as debtors-in-possession under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 1 for additional information about the bankruptcy proceedings. |
