Commitments and Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2020
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||Commitments and Contingencies
The Company has operating office space leases in Austin, Texas; Irvine, California; San Diego, California; and Miami, Florida. Rent expense under operating leases totaled $213 and $424 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2020, respectively. Rent expense under operating leases totaled $166 and $331 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, respectively.
Future minimum annual lease payments as of June 30, 2020 under the Company’s operating leases are set forth as follows:
On September 26, 2017, the Company filed a breach of contract complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") seeking approximately $3,000 (plus interest) for unpaid invoices for advertising campaign services provided for Uber in the first quarter of 2017. The case, captioned Phunware, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. CGC-17-561546 was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California County of San Francisco. On November 13, 2017, Uber generally denied the allegations in the Company's complaint and also filed a cross-complaint against Phunware and Fetch Media, Ltd. ("Fetch") - the advertising agency Uber retained to run its mobile advertising campaign for the period 2014 through the first quarter of 2017 (the “Fetch Campaign”), asserting numerous fraud and contract-based claims. All the claims stem from Uber’s allegation that Fetch and/or the Company (and/or other-as-yet-unidentified ad networks and publishers) are liable for the Fetch Campaign, under which Uber allegedly overpaid Fetch and mobile advertising providers due to allegedly fraudulent attribution for installments of the Uber application. Uber did not allege any specific dollar amount that it is seeking in damages against either of the named cross-defendants (Fetch and Phunware). Phunware filed a motion to dismiss the cross-complaint, which was heard on February 7, 2018. The motion was granted in part and denied in part by the Court. On April 16, 2018, the action was designated complex, and the matter was assigned for all purposes to Judge Wiss of the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Department 305). In March 2019, Uber and Fetch settled Uber’s claims against Fetch on terms that have not been disclosed to Phunware at this time. On May 7, 2019, the Company retained new counsel. In June 2019, the Court set a new trial date of April 20, 2020. On June 26, 2019, the case was reassigned for all purposes to Judge Jackson of the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Department 613). On July 12, 2019, Uber filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint, naming new individual cross-defendants (Phunware Chief Executive Officer Alan S. Knitowski, and former Phunware employees D. Stasiuk, M. Borotsik, and A. Cook) accused of civil RICO violations and civil conspiracy to violate RICO, in addition to fraud, negligence, and unfair competition-based claims, and adding a fraud-based claim against Phunware. Uber’s First Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that cross-defendants fraudulently obtained approximately $17,000 from Uber, and claims treble damages, general and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 1, 2019, Alan S. Knitowski (“Knitowski”) filed his Motion to Quash Service of Summons, which was denied on October 29, 2019. On October 7, 2019, D. Stasiuk, M. Borotsik, and A. Cook filed their Motion to Quash Service of Summons, which was denied on December 17, 2019. On December 2, 2019, the case was reassigned for all purposes to Judge Cheng of the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Department 613). On January 22, 2020, the Court assigned the case to Judge Wiss of the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Department 305) for purposes of trial. On March 13, 2020, the Court announced that jury trials will be continued for 90 days from the date they have been scheduled in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, on March 13, 2020, the Court ordered Phunware to pay $78 in monetary sanctions based on a discovery motion brought by Uber. On March 19, 2020, Uber filed a further discovery motion for terminating, evidentiary, issue and monetary sanctions. The March 19, 2020 motion was heard on July 29, 2020. On August 12, 2020, the Court issued its order on Uber’s sanctions motion, granting in part and denying in part Uber’s motion. The Court’s order, in part, struck Phunware’s Complaint and Phunware’s Answer to Uber’s First Amended Cross-Complaint so that default judgment should be entered against the Company. The order stated that the Court will schedule a default prove up hearing at a later date. The Company intends to vigorously contest the order and will file an appeal with the California Appellate Court. The case is still proceeding as to the remaining third party defendants. The Company is currently unable to determine the amount of loss or range of loss that may result from the prove up hearing or in this matter as a whole. The Company maintains that its claims against Uber are meritorious and that Uber’s claims against the Company are not. However, the Company makes no predictions on the likelihood of success of prevailing in any appellate review and in any subsequent proceedings in this matter.
On December 17, 2019, certain stockholders (the "Plaintiffs") filed a lawsuit against the Company. The case, captioned Wild Basin Investments, LLC, et al. v. Phunware, Inc., et al.; Cause No. D-1-GN-19- 008846 was filed in the 126th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas. The Plaintiffs invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was private and claim the Company should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day "lock up" period. According to the Plaintiffs, the price of Phunware stock dropped significantly during the lock up period. The Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in excess of
$1,000. The Company maintains the Plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to contest vigorously the claims asserted in the lawsuit. All defendants have answered. The Court has not yet set a trial date or pretrial deadlines. The case is in early stage of discovery.
On March 9, 2020, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP (“EGS”) filed a lawsuit against the Company. The complaint, captioned Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP versus Stellar Acquisition III, Corp a/k/a Stellar Acquisition III, Inc. n/k/a Phunware, Inc., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Case No. 152585/2020). EGS is seeking monetary damages in the amount of $690 for alleged unpaid invoices related to legal services rendered for Stellar in conjunction with the reverse merger with the Company, plus legal and court costs. Pursuant to a stipulation, the Company currently has until September 15, 2020 to respond to the complaint. The Company and EGS are exploring the possibility of resolution of this matter and are in the process of drafting a settlement agreement, but there can be no guarantees that a resolution will be successful. The Company has $690 in accounts payable in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019 related to the alleged unpaid invoices.
On April 24, 2020 Sha-Poppin Gourmet Popcorn, LLC, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated parties (the “Popcorn Company”), filed a lawsuit against certain defendants, including the Company. The case captioned, Sha-Poppin Gourmet Popcorn, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., RCSH Operations, LLC, RCSH Operations, Inc (together d/b/a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse), and Phunware, Inc., was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The Popcorn Company alleges that the Company was unjustly enriched by JPMorgan Chase for the Company's loan made pursuant to the PPP under the CARES Act. (See Note 6 for discussion related to the Company's CARES Act loan.) The Company filed a motion to dismiss the single claim against it and disputes the court's jurisdiction and the basis of the claim. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the preliminary stage of the case, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this dispute, or estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter.
From time to time, the Company is and may become involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. The outcomes of our legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular reporting period. In addition, for the matters disclosed above that do not include an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses, such an estimate is not possible, and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef