Commitments, Contingencies and Related Parties |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Feb. 02, 2025 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments, Contingencies and Related Parties | Commitments, Contingencies and Related Parties Legal Proceedings
We are subject to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business, as well as certain other non-ordinary course proceedings, claims and investigations, as described below. We make a provision for a loss contingency when it is both probable that a material liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable and an estimate of the loss or range of losses arising from the proceeding can be made, we disclose such an estimate, if material. If such a loss or range of losses is not reasonably estimable, we disclose that fact. We review any such loss contingency provisions at least quarterly and adjust them to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. We recognize insurance recoveries, if any, when they are probable of receipt. All associated costs due to third-party service providers and consultants, including legal fees, are expensed as incurred. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. It is possible that our financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially negatively affected in any particular period by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such legal proceedings.
As previously disclosed, the Company voluntarily self-reported to the SEC information concerning the internal investigation of the accounting matters that led to the restatement of its previously issued audited financial statements as of and for the year ended January 29, 2023 and our unaudited condensed financial statements for the quarterly periods ended April 30, 2023, October 30, 2022, July 31, 2022 and May 1, 2022. As a result of self-reporting, the Company was the subject of a non-public investigation by the SEC. The Company cooperated fully with the SEC in its investigation, and on October 29, 2024, the Company agreed to a settlement to resolve the claims against it. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Lovesac agreed to the entry of a final judgment ordering it to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty and imposing a permanent injunction against future violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the associated rules thereunder. During
fiscal 2025, the penalties were recognized within selling, general and administrative expense in the Statements of Operations and paid in full.
On December 19, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers related to the restatement of certain of the Company’s financial statements. The suit, captioned Gutknecht v. The Lovesac Company, No. 3:23-cv-1640, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and alleges that all defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint generally alleges that the Company made certain misrepresentations or failed to disclose certain accounting errors related to the restatement of its financial statements and that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting were deficient. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 11, 2024, the court appointed Susan Cooke Peña as Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel. On May 29, 2024, the parties entered into a term sheet to settle the action, subject to various conditions, including execution of a definitive settlement agreement, filing of the definitive agreement with the court, and court approval. The parties executed the definitive settlement agreement on July 30, 2024. The court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement on August 1, 2024, authorized dissemination of notice to the class, and scheduled a fairness hearing. On December 9, 2024, the Court entered an order approving final settlement of the litigation, including dismissing the lawsuit and releasing all claims in exchange for a settlement payment by the Company (the “Approval Order”). On December 10, 2024, the Court entered judgment dismissing the litigation on the merits and with prejudice according to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement and the Approval Order. During fiscal 2025, the settlement was recognized within selling, general and administrative expense in the Statements of Operations and paid in full.
On July 29, 2024, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Getz v. Nelson, No. 3:24-cv-1260, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former officers and directors. Two similar shareholder derivative actions, captioned Valle v. Dellomo, No. 3:24-cv-1327, and McKinnon v. Nelson, No. 3:24-cv-1343, were filed in the same court against the same defendants on August 19, 2024, and August 21, 2024, respectively. The cases assert claims on behalf of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Exchange Act, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, and aiding and abetting primary violations. The factual allegations underlying those claims are similar to those alleged in the securities class action. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs. On September 20, 2024, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits under the caption In re The Lovesac Company Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:24-cv-01260-VAB (i.e., the “Derivative Action”). The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the Derivative Action, which is subject to execution of a definitive agreement and, among other conditions, approval by the Court. If the contemplated settlement is ultimately concluded as agreed in principle, the Company believes the resolution will not have a material impact to the financial statements.
On March 21, 2024, a putative class action complaint related to the Company’s pricing was filed against the Company. The lawsuit, captioned Nguyen v. The Lovesac Company, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, and was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint generally alleges that the Company falsely advertised discounts on certain products. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief related to the Company’s sales practices, and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other expenses. On June 24, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 12, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. On November 26, 2024, the court entered an order to stay all proceedings in the case in light of a mediation of the dispute scheduled for January 23, 2025. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the January 23, 2025 mediation. On February 7, 2025, the court unstayed the proceedings in the case for the purpose of ruling on the Company's pending motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, but dismissed Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief without leave to amend. The court provided the plaintiff 30 days to file another amended complaint. If the plaintiff amends his complaint, the Company will have 21 days to file a responsive pleading. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this proceeding.
|