SPAR Group, Inc. - Quarter Report: 2019 March (Form 10-Q)

 

---

 

---

 

		March 31, 2019				December 31, 2018
		(Unaudited)
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents		$	7,090			$	7,111
Accounts receivable, net			47,419				46,142
Prepaid expenses and other current assets			2,935				1,879
Total current assets			57,444				55,132
Property and equipment, net			3,030				2,950
Operating lease right-of-use assets			5,328				–
Goodwill			3,787				3,788
Intangible assets, net			3,197				3,332
Deferred income taxes			2,665				2,568
Other assets			1,593				1,325
Total assets		$	77,044			$	69,095
Liabilities and equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable		$	9,984			$	8,668
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities			18,529				18,168
Due to affiliates			4,558				4,645
Customer incentives and deposits			702				620
Lines of credit and short-term loans			10,049				10,414
Current portion of operating lease liabilities			1,400				–
Total current liabilities			45,222				42,515
Operating lease liabilities, less current portion			3,928				–
Long-term debt and other liabilities			1,922				1,806
Total liabilities			51,072				44,321
Commitments and contingencies – See Note 8
Equity:
SPAR Group, Inc. equity
Preferred stock, $.01 par value: Authorized and available shares– 2,445,598 Issued and outstanding shares– None – March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018			–				–
Common stock, $.01 par value: Authorized shares – 47,000,000 Issued shares – 20,784,483 – March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018			208				208
Treasury stock, at cost 7,895 shares – March 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018			(8	)			(8	)
Additional paid-in capital			16,353				16,304
Accumulated other comprehensive loss			(3,540	)			(3,638	)
Retained earnings			4,033				3,432
Total SPAR Group, Inc. equity			17,046				16,298
Non-controlling interest			8,926				8,476
Total equity			25,972				24,774
Total liabilities and equity		$	77,044			$	69,095

---

 

		Three Months Ended March 31,
		2019				2018
Net revenues		$	57,160			$	54,579
Cost of revenues			46,525				44,849
Gross profit			10,635				9,730
Selling, general and administrative expense			8,394				8,458
Depreciation and amortization			508				542
Operating income			1,733				730
Interest expense			199				199
Other (income), net			(65	)			(72	)
Income before income tax expense			1,599				603
Income tax expense			558				178
Net income			1,041				425
Net income attributable to non-controlling interest			(422	)			(301	)
Net income attributable to SPAR Group, Inc.		$	619			$	124
Basic and diluted income per common share:		$	0.03			$	0.01
Weighted average common shares – basic			20,777				20,648
Weighted average common shares – diluted			21,051				21,599
Net income		$	1,041			$	425
Other comprehensive loss:
Foreign currency translation adjustments			108				(30	)
Comprehensive income			1,149				395
Comprehensive income attributable to non-controlling interest			(450	)			(271	)
Comprehensive income attributable to SPAR Group, Inc.		$	699			$	124

---

 

		Common Stock								Treasury Stock								Additional				Accumulated Other								Non-
		Shares				Amount				Shares				Amount				Paid-In Capital				Comprehensive Loss				Retained Earnings				Controlling Interest				Total Equity
Balance at January 1, 2019			20,785			$	208				8			$	(8	)		$	16,304			$	(3,638	)		$	3,432			$	8,476			$	24,774
Share-based compensation			–				–				–				–				49				–				–				–				49
Other comprehensive income			–				–				–				–				–				98				(18	)			28				108
Net income			–				–				–				–				–				–				619				422				1,041
Balance at March 31, 2019			20,785			$	208				8			$	(8	)		$	16,353			$	(3,540	)		$	4,033			$	8,926			$	25,972

		Common Stock								Treasury Stock								Additional				Accumulated Other								Non-
		Shares				Amount				Shares				Amount				Paid-In Capital				Comprehensive Loss				Retained Earnings				Controlling Interest				Total Equity
Balance at January 1, 2018			20,681			$	207				104			$	(115	)		$	16,271			$	(1,690	)		$	4,977			$	5,905			$	25,555
Share-based compensation			–				–				–				–				49				–				–				–				49
Exercise of stock options			–				–				(71	)			79				(79	)			–				–				–				–
Distributions to non-controlling investors			–				–				–				–				–				–				–				(463	)			(463	)
Non-controlling interest related to Resource Plus acquisition			–				–				–				–				–				–				–				3,023				3,023
Other comprehensive income			–				–				–				–				–				–				–				(30	)			(30	)
Net income			–				–				–				–				–				–				124				301				425
Balance at March 31, 2018			20,681			$	207				33			$	(36	)		$	16,241			$	(1,690	)		$	5,101			$	8,736			$	28,559

---

 

		Three Months Ended March 31,
		2019				2018
Operating activities
Net income		$	1,041			$	425
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization			508				542
Bad debt expense, net of recoveries			(13	)			36
Share based compensation			49				49
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable			(1,236	)			(7,108	)
Prepaid expenses and other assets			(1,390	)			(190	)
Accounts payable			1,310				512
Accrued expenses, other current liabilities and customer incentives and deposits			269				5,117
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities			538				(617	)
Investing activities
Purchases of property and equipment and capitalized software			(464	)			(487	)
Purchase of Resource Plus subsidiary, net of cash acquired			–				767
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities			(464	)			280
Financing activities
Net (payments) borrowing on lines of credit			(159	)			1,252
Payments on term debt			(85	)			(18	)
Distribution to non-controlling investors			–				(463	)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities			(244	)			771
Effect of foreign exchange rate changes on cash			149				(399	)
Net change in cash and cash equivalents			(21	)			35
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year			7,111				8,827
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period		$	7,090			$	8,862
Supplemental disclosure of cash flows information:
Interest paid		$	201			$	137
Income taxes paid		$	95			$	59

---

 

1.	Basis of Presentation

 

The unaudited, interim condensed consolidated financial statements of SPAR Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("SGRP"), and its subsidiaries (together with SGRP, collectively, the "Company" or the "SPAR Group"), accompanying this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended March 31, 2019 (this "Quarterly Report"), have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements. The consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2018, has been prepared from the Company's audited consolidated balance sheet as of such date.   In the opinion of management, all normal and recurring adjustments considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included in these interim financial statements. However, these interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the annual consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the Company as contained in the SGRP's Annual Report  on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on April 24, 2019 (the  "2018 Annual Report"), and SGRP's Proxy Statement for its 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders as filed with the SEC on April 29, 2019 (and Additional Definitive Materials filed with the SEC on May 3, 2019, collectively the "2019 Proxy Statement").  Particular attention should be given to Items 1 and 1A of the 2018 Annual Report respecting the Company's Business and Risk Factors, respectively, and the following parts of SGRP's 2019 Proxy Statement: (i) SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT, (ii) CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, (iii) EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, DIRECTORS AND OTHER INFORMATION and (iv) EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, EQUITY AWARDS AND OPTIONS.  The Company's results of operations for the interim period are not necessarily indicative of its operating results for the entire year. Except for the change noted below, the Company has consistently applied the accounting policies to all periods presented in these condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company adopted ASC 842 on January 1, 2019. As a result, the Company changed its accounting policy for accounting for leases as detailed in Notes 10 and 11.

 

2.	Business and Organization

 

The Company is a supplier of merchandising and other marketing services throughout the United States and internationally. The Company provides merchandising and other marketing services to manufacturers, distributors and retailers worldwide, primarily in mass merchandiser, office supply, grocery, drug, dollar, independent, convenience, home improvement and electronics stores, as well as providing furniture and other product assembly services, audit services, in-store events, technology services and marketing research.

 

Merchandising services primarily consist of regularly scheduled, special project and other product services provided at the store level, and the Company may be engaged by either the retailer or the manufacturer. Those services may include restocking and adding new products, removing spoiled or outdated products, resetting categories in accordance with client or store schematics, confirming and replacing shelf tags, setting new sale or promotional product displays and advertising, replenishing kiosks, providing in-store event staffing and providing assembly services in stores, homes and offices. Other merchandising services include whole store or departmental product sets or resets, including new store openings, new product launches and in-store demonstrations, audit services, special seasonal or promotional merchandising, focused product support and product recalls. The Company also provides technology services and marketing research services.

 

As of March 31, 2019, the Company operates in 10 countries and divides its operations into two reportable segments: its Domestic Division, which has provided services in the United States of America since certain of its predecessors were formed in 1979, and its International Division, which began operations in May 2001 and provides similar merchandising, marketing, audit and in-store event staffing services in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey.

 

3.	Earnings Per Share

 

The following table sets forth the computations of basic and diluted net income per share (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

4.	Credit Facilities and Other Debt

 

Domestic Credit Facilities

 

North Mill Capital Credit Facility

 

On April 10, 2019, the Company repaid and replaced its 2018 credit facility with PNC Bank, National Association ("PNC"), with a new secured revolving credit facility in the United States and Canada (the "NM Credit Facility") with North Mill Capital, LLC ("NM").

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

In order to obtain, document and govern the new NM Credit Facility: SGRP and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries in the United States and Canada, namely SPAR Marketing Force ("SMF"), Inc., and SPAR Canada Company ("SCC") (each, a "NM Borrower" and collectively, the "NM Borrowers"), and SPAR Canada, Inc., SPAR Acquisition, Inc., SPAR Assembly and Installation, Inc., and SPAR Trademarks, Inc. (together with SGRP, each a "NM Guarantor" and collectively, the "NM Guarantors), entered into eighteen (18) month individual Loan and Security Agreements with NM dated as of April 10, 2019 (the "NM Loan Agreements"), which governs the obligations of the NM Loan Parties to NM and secures them with pledges of substantially all of the assets of the NM Loan Parties (other than SGRP's foreign subsidiaries, certain designated domestic subsidiaries, and their respective equity and assets); the SMF Borrower issued its $10.5 million Revolving Credit Master Promissory Note to NM dated April 10, 2019, and the SCC Borrower issued its $1.5 million Revolving Credit Master Promissory Note to NM dated April 10, 2019 (the "NM Notes"), which evidences the NM Borrowers' loans and other obligations to NM; the NM Guarantors entered into a Guaranty Agreement with NM dated as of April 10, 2019 (the "NM Guaranty"), which guaranties the NM Borrowers' loans and other obligations to NM. The NM Loan Agreements have an approved maximum borrowing capacity of $12.5 million for the SMF Borrower and $2.5 million for the SCC Borrower.

 

On April 10, 2019, the Company drew down an initial advance under the NM Credit Facility of approximately $9.8 million, which was used to repay the Company's existing credit facility with PNC.

 

The NM Note currently requires the NM Borrowers to pay interest on the loans thereunder equal to (A) Prime Rate designated by Wells Fargo Bank, plus (B) one hundred twenty five basis points (1.25%). In addition, the Company is paying a fee to NM in the amount of 1.5% of the Promissory Notes or $180,000 payable at $10,000 per month over the term of the agreement. The Company utilized a broker to assist in this financing and has paid a fee of $120,000 for their services.

 

Revolving loans are available to the Borrowers under the NM Credit Facility based upon the borrowing base formula defined in the NM Loan Agreement (principally 85% of "eligible" accounts receivable less certain reserves and 60% of eligible unbilled accounts receivable at a maximum limit of $4.5 million).

 

The NM Credit Facility contains certain financial and other restrictive covenants and also limits certain expenditures by the NM Loan Parties, including, maintaining a positive trailing EBITDA for each Borrower and limits on capital expenditures and other investments.

 

In January 2018, the Company repaid and replaced its credit facility with Sterling Bank with a secured revolving credit facility in the United States and Canada (as amended the "PNC Credit Facility") with PNC Bank, National Association.

 

PNC Credit Facility

 

In order to obtain, document and govern the PNC Credit Facility: SGRP and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries in the United States and Canada, namely SPAR Marketing Force ("SMF"), Inc., SPAR Assembly & Installation, Inc., and SPAR Canada Company (each, a "PNC Borrower" and collectively, the "PNC Borrowers"), and SPAR Canada, Inc., SPAR Acquisition, Inc., SPAR Group International, Inc., and SPAR Trademarks, Inc. (together with SGRP, each a "PNC Guarantor" and collectively, the "PNC Guarantors), entered into a Loan Agreement with PNC dated as of January 16, 2018 (the "PNC Loan Agreement"); the PNC Borrowers issued their $9 million Committed Line Of Credit Note to PNC dated January 16, 2018 (the "Original PNC Note"), which evidences the PNC Borrowers' loans and other obligations to PNC; the PNC Guarantors entered into a Guaranty and Suretyship Agreement with PNC dated as of January 16, 2018 (the "PNC Guaranty"), which guaranties the PNC Borrowers' loans and other obligations to PNC; and the PNC Borrowers and PNC Guarantors (each, a "PNC Loan Party" and collectively, the "PNC Loan Parties") entered into a Security Agreement with PNC dated as of January 16, 2018 (the "PNC Security Agreement"), which secures the obligations of the PNC Loan Parties to PNC with pledges of substantially all of the assets of the PNC Loan Parties (other than SGRP's foreign subsidiaries, certain designated domestic subsidiaries, and their respective equity and assets).

 

An amendment to the PNC Credit Facility dated as of July 3, 2018, among other things, increased the maximum principal amount of the Revolving Loans to $9.5 million.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

The PNC Note required the PNC Borrowers to pay interest on the loans thereunder equal to (A) the Daily LIBOR Rate (as defined therein) per annum, plus (B) two hundred fifty basis points (2.50%). On March 31, 2019, the aggregate interest rate under that formula was 4.99% per annum, and the outstanding loan balance was $8.4 million.

 

Revolving loans of up to $9.5 million were available to the Company under the PNC Credit Facility based upon the borrowing base formula defined in the PNC Loan Agreement (principally 85% of "eligible" accounts receivable less certain reserves) rendering a maximum borrowing amount of $9.5 million as of March 31, 2019.

 

The PNC Credit Facility contained certain financial and other restrictive covenants and also limited certain expenditures by the PNC Loan Parties, including, maintaining a minimum Tangible Net Worth of $13.4 million and limits on capital expenditures and other investments.

 

On March 31, 2019, the PNC Loan Parties were not in compliance with the minimum Tangible Net Worth covenant. The Company had entered into the NM Credit Facility effective April 2019 and did not pursue a waiver.

 

Fifth Third Credit Facility

 

On January 9, 2018, the Company completed its acquisition of a 51% interest in its new subsidiaries, Resource Plus of North Florida, Inc., and related companies (collectively, "Resource Plus"). When acquired, Resource Plus was a party to a revolving line of credit facility it secured on May 23, 2016, (the "Fifth Third Credit Facility") from Fifth Third Bank for $3.5 million, which was scheduled to expire on May 23, 2018. Effective April 11, 2018, the term of the Fifth Third Credit Facility was extended and is currently scheduled to become due on April 23, 2020. As there are no provisions (other than defaults) requiring the pay down of the loan until April 23, 2020, any amounts outstanding are classified as long-term debt.

 

Revolving loans of up to $3.5 million are available to Resource Plus under the Fifth Third Credit Facility based upon the borrowing base formula defined in the agreement (principally 80% of "eligible" accounts receivable less certain reserves). As of March 31, 2019, there was no outstanding balance. The Fifth Third Credit Facility is secured by substantially all assets of Resource Plus.

 

The Fifth Third Credit Facility currently requires Resource Plus to pay interest on the loans thereunder equal to (A) the Daily LIBOR Rate (as defined in the agreement) per annum, plus (B) two hundred fifty basis points (2.50%). On March 31, 2019, the aggregate interest rate under that formula was 5.23% per annum.

 

Other Debt

 

Effective with the closing of the Resource Plus acquisition, the Company entered into promissory notes with the sellers totaling $2.3 million. The notes are payable in annual installments at various amounts due on December 31st of each year starting with December 31, 2018 and continuing through December 31, 2023. As such these notes are classified as both short term and long term for the appropriate amounts.  The total balance owed at March 31, 2019 was approximately $2.0 million.

 

International Credit Facilities: 

 

SPARFACTS Australia Pty. Ltd. has a secured line of credit facility with National Australia Bank, effective October 31, 2017, for $800,000 (Australian) or approximately $568,000 USD (based upon the exchange rate at March 31, 2019). The facility provides for borrowing based upon a formula, as defined in the agreement (principally 80% of eligible accounts receivable less certain deductions). The outstanding balance with National Australia Bank as of March 31, 2019 was $608,000 (Australian) or $431,000 USD and is due on demand.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

SPAR Todopromo has secured a line of credit facility with BBVA Bancomer Bank for 5.0 million Mexican Pesos or approximately $258,000 USD (based upon the exchange rate at March 31, 2019). The revolving line of credit was secured on March 15, 2016, and originally expired March 2018. The facility has been amended to extend the terms to April 2020. The variable interest rate is TIIE (Interbank Interest Rate) +4%, which resulted in an annual interest rate of 12.5% as of March 31, 2019. The outstanding balance at March 31, 2019 was 5 million Mexican Pesos or approximately $258,000 USD.

 

On May 29, 2018, SPAR Brazil established a line of credit facility with Banco Bradesco for 1.2 million Brazilian Real or approximately $306,000 USD (based upon the exchange rate at March 31, 2019). The facility provides for borrowing with no formal guarantees. The agreement expires on November 29, 2019. The outstanding balance at March 31, 2019, was approximately 100,000 Brazilian Real or approximately $26,000 USD.

 

On October 5, 2018 SPAR Brazil secured a line of credit facility with Branco Bradesco for approximately 3.5 million Brazilian Real or approximately $900,000 USD (based upon the exchange rate at March 31, 2019). The outstanding balance as of March 31, 2019 was approximately 2.9 million Brazilian Real or approximately $727,000 USD. The note is due December 19, 2019, with varying monthly payments.

 

On October 5, 2018 SPAR Brazil secured a line of credit facility with Branco Santander for approximately 381,000 Brazilian Real or approximately $97,000 USD (based upon the exchange rate at March 31, 2019). The outstanding balance as of March 31, 2019 was approximately 321,000 Brazilian Real or approximately $82,000 USD.

 

 

Summary of Unused Company Credit and Other Debt Facilities (in thousands):

 

 

Management believes that based upon the continuation of the Company's existing credit facilities, projected results of operations, vendor payment requirements and other financing available to the Company (including amounts due to affiliates), sources of cash availability should be manageable and sufficient to support ongoing operations over the next year. However, delays in collection of receivables due from any of the Company's major clients, or a significant reduction in business from such clients could have a material adverse effect on the Company's cash resources and its ongoing ability to fund operations.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

5.	Related-Party Transactions

 

SGRP's policy respecting approval of transactions with related persons, promoters and control persons is contained in the SPAR Group Code of Ethical Conduct for its Directors, Executives, Officers, Employees, Consultants and other Representatives Amended and Restated (as of) March 15, 2018 (the "Ethics Code"). The Ethics Code is intended to promote and reward honest, ethical, respectful and professional conduct by each director, executive, officer, employee, consultant and other representative of any of SGRP and its subsidiaries (together with SGRP, the "Company") and each other Covered Person (as defined in the Ethics Code) in his or her position with the Company anywhere in the world, including (among other things) serving each customer, dealing with each vendor and treating each other with integrity and respect, and behaving honestly, ethically and professionally with each customer, each vendor, each other and the Company. Article II of the Ethics Code specifically prohibits various forms of self-dealing (including dealing with relatives) and collusion and Article V of the Ethics Code generally prohibits each "Covered Person" (including SGRP's officers and directors) from using or disclosing the Confidential Information of the Company or any of its customers or vendors, seeking or accepting anything of value from any competitor, customer, vendor, or other person relating to doing business with the Company, or engaging in any business activity that conflicts with his or her duties to the Company, and directs each "Covered Person" to avoid any activity or interest that is inconsistent with the best interests of the SPAR Group, in each case except for any "Approved Activity" (as such terms are defined in the Ethics Code). Examples of violations include (among other things) having any ownership interest in, acting as a director or officer of or otherwise personally benefiting from business with any competitor, customer or vendor of the Company other than pursuant to any Approved Activity. Approved Activities include (among other things) any contract with an affiliated person (each an "Approved Affiliate Contract") or anything else disclosed to and approved by SGRP's Board of Directors (the "Board"), its Governance Committee or its Audit Committee, as the case may be, as well as the ownership, board, executive and other positions held in and services and other contributions to affiliates of SGRP and its subsidiaries by certain directors, officers or employees of SGRP, any of its subsidiaries or any of their respective family members. The Company's senior management is generally responsible for monitoring compliance with the Ethics Code and establishing and maintaining compliance systems, including those related to the oversight and approval of conflicting relationships and transactions, subject to the review and oversight of SGRP's Governance Committee as provided in clause IV.11 of the Governance Committee's Charter, and SGRP's Audit Committee as provided in clause I.2(l) of the Audit Committee's Charter. The Governance Committee and Audit Committee each consist solely of independent outside directors (see Domestic Related Party Services, International Related Party Services, Related Party Transaction Summary, Related Party Transaction Summary, Affinity Insurance, and Other Related Party Transactions and Arrangements, below).

 

SGRP's Audit Committee has the specific duty and responsibility to review and approve the overall fairness and terms of all material related-party transactions. The Audit Committee receives affiliate contracts and amendments thereto for its review and approval (to the extent approval is given), and these contracts are periodically (often annually) again reviewed, in accordance with the Audit Committee Charter, the Ethics Code, the rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ("Nasdaq"), and other applicable law to ensure that the overall economic and other terms will be (or continue to be) no less favorable to the Company than would be the case in an arms-length contract with an unrelated provider of similar services (i.e., its overall fairness to the Company, including pricing, payments to related parties, and the ability to provide services at comparable performance levels). The Audit Committee periodically reviews all related party relationships and transactions described below.

 

The Special Committee also has been involved in the review of the Proposed Amendments to SGRP's By-Laws and the By-Laws Action and 225 Action (see Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Settled Delaware Litigations, below).

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

Domestic Related Party Services: 

 

SPAR Business Services, Inc. ("SBS"), SPAR Administrative Services, Inc. ("SAS"), and SPAR InfoTech, Inc. ("Infotech"), have provided services from time to time to the Company and are related parties and affiliates of SGRP, but are not under the control or part of the consolidated Company. SBS is an affiliate because it is owned by Robert G. Brown and prior to December 2018 was owned by William H. Bartels. SAS is an affiliate because it is owned by William H. Bartels and certain relatives of Robert G. Brown or entities controlled by them (each of whom are considered affiliates of the Company for related party purposes).  Infotech is an affiliate because it is owned by Robert G. Brown.  Mr. Brown and Mr. Bartels are the Majority Stockholders (see below) and founders of SGRP, Mr. Brown was Chairman and an officer and director of SGRP through May 3, 2018 (when he retired), and Mr. Bartels was and continues to be Vice Chairman and a director and officer of SGRP.  Mr. Brown and Mr. Bartels also have been and are stockholders, directors and executive officers of various other affiliates of SGRP. See Note 8, RELATED PARTIES AND RELATED PARTY LITIGATION, below. 

 

The Company executes its domestic field services through the services of field merchandising, auditing, assembly and other field personnel (each a "Field Specialist"), substantially all of whom are provided to the Company and engaged by independent third parties and located, scheduled, deployed and administered domestically through the services of local, regional, district and other personnel (each a "Field Administrator"), and substantially all of the Field Administrators are in turn are employed by other independent third parties.

 

SBS provided substantially all of the Field Specialist services in the U.S.A. to the Company from January 1 through July 27, 2018, and an independent vendor and licensee provided them for the balance of 2018.  The Company paid $6.8 million during the three months ended March 31, 2018, to SBS for its provision as needed of the services of approximately 3,800 of SBS's available Field Specialists in the U.S.A. (which amounted to approximately 52% of the Company's total domestic Field Specialist service expense for the three months ended March 31, 2018).

 

Since the termination of  the Amended and Restated Field Service Agreement with SBS December 1, 2014 (as amended, the "Prior SBS Agreement"), the Company and SBS agreed to an arrangement where the Company reimbursed SBS for the Field Specialist service costs and certain other approved reimbursable expenses incurred by SBS in performing services for the Company and paid SBS a revised  fixed percentage of such reimbursable expenses (the "Cost Plus Fee") equal to 2.96% of those reimbursable expenses, subject to certain offsetting credits.  The Company had offered a new agreement to SBS confirming that reimbursable expenses were subject to review and approval by the Company, but SBS rejected that proposal.

 

Due to (among other things) the Clothier Determination and the ongoing proceedings against SBS (which could have had a material adverse effect on SBS's ability to provide future services needed by the Company), SBS' continued higher charges and expense reimbursement disputes, and the Company's identification of an experienced independent third party company (the "Independent Field Vendor") who would provide comparable services on substantially better terms, the Company terminated the services of SBS effective July 27, 2018, and the Company has engaged that Independent Field Vendor to replace those field services previously provided by SBS (other than in California).  The Company similarly terminated SAS and has engaged another independent third party company on substantially better terms to replace those administrative services formerly provided by SAS, effective August 1, 2018.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

Even though the Company believes it had paid SBS for all services provided through July 27, 2018, the Company received notice that there may not have been sufficient funds in SBS' bank accounts to honor all payments SBS had made by check to their Field Specialists.  Based on this notice, the Company withheld approximately $435,000 of final mark-up compensation due SBS and had been making payments, on a daily basis, into the SBS bank account designated for Field Specialist payments to ensure all SBS Field Specialists that had provided services to the Company are properly compensated for those services.  The $435,000 has been completely exhausted and the Company was required to fund an additional $13,000 to cover these duplicate Field Specialist payments.  The Company believes that there may be checks for Field Service payments for as much as an additional $120,000 that the Company believes may not be honored by SBS.  The Company has made plans to ensure that all of the current Field Specialists are properly paid and is exploring its legal options for recovery of all duplicate payments it is making on SBS's behalf.

 

No SBS compensation to any officer, director or other related party had been reimbursed or approved to date by the Company, and no such compensation reimbursements were approved under SBS's Prior Agreement.  This was not a restriction on SBS since SBS is not controlled by the Company and could have paid any compensation to any person that SBS desires out of its own funds.  Since SBS is a "Subchapter S" corporation, all income from SBS is allocated to its stockholders (see above).

 

The appropriateness of SBS's treatment of its Field Specialists as independent contractors had been periodically subject to legal challenge (both currently and historically) by various states and others, SBS's expenses of defending those challenges and other proceedings had historically been reimbursed by the Company under SBS's Prior Agreement, and SBS's expenses of defending those challenges and other proceedings were reimbursed by the Company for the three month period ended March 31, 2018, in the amount of $60,000, after determination (on a case by case basis) that those defense expenses were costs of providing services to the Company.

 

On May 15, 2017, the Company advised SBS that, since there was no currently effective comprehensive written services agreement with SBS, the Company would continue to review and decide each request by SBS for reimbursement of its legal defense expenses (including appeals) on a case-by-case basis in its discretion, including the relative costs and benefits to the Company.  SBS has disputed the right of the Company and SGRP's Audit Committee to review and decide the appropriateness of the reimbursement of any of those related party defense and other expense reimbursements.  In addition, on June 13, 2018, the Company gave SBS notice that it would no longer reimburse any such expenses as a result of SGRP's separate settlement of the Clothier Case.  

 

As provided in SBS's Prior Agreement, the Company is not obligated or liable, and the Company has not otherwise agreed and does not currently intend, to reimburse SBS for any judgment or similar amount (including any damages, settlement, or related tax, penalty, or interest) in any legal challenge or other proceeding against or involving SBS, and the Company does not believe it has ever done so (other than in insignificant nuisance amounts).

 

Furthermore, even though SBS was solely responsible for its operations, methods and legal compliance, in connection with any proceedings against SBS, SBS may claim that the Company is somehow liable for any judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS and pursue that claim with litigation. The Company does not believe there is any basis for such claims and would defend them vigorously. There can be no assurance that plaintiffs or someone else will not claim that the Company is liable (under applicable law, through reimbursement or indemnification, or otherwise) for any such judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS, or that the Company will be able to defend any claim successfully.  Any imposition of liability on the Company for any such amount could have a material adverse effect on the Company or its performance or condition (including its assets, business, clients, capital, cash flow, credit, expenses, financial condition, income, legal costs, liabilities, liquidity, locations, marketing, operations, prospects, sales, strategies, taxation or other achievement, results or condition), whether actual or as planned, intended, anticipated, estimated or otherwise expected.  See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters, below.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

The Company has reached a non-exclusive agreement on substantially better terms than SBS with an experienced independent third-party vendor to provide substantially all of the domestic Field Specialist services used by the Company.  The Company has also reached a separate non-exclusive agreement on substantially better terms than with SAS with another independent third-party vendor to provide substantially all of the domestic Field Administrator services used by the Company. The Company transitioned to such new vendors during July 2018, and such transition was virtually unnoticeable to the Company's clients.

 

SAS provided substantially all of the Field Administrators in the U.S.A. to the Company from January 1 through March 31, 2018. The Company paid $1.1 million to SAS for its provision of its 57 full-time regional and district administrators (which amounted to approximately 91% of the Company's total domestic field administrative service cost for the three month period ended March 31, 2018.

 

In addition to these field service and administration expenses, SAS also incurred other administrative expenses related to benefit and employment tax expenses of SAS and payroll processing, and other administrative expenses and SBS incurred expenses for processing vendor payments, legal defense and other administrative expenses (but those expenses were only reimbursed by SGRP to the extent approved by the Company as described below). 

 

No SAS compensation to any officer, director or other related party (other than to Mr. Peter W. Brown, a related party as noted below, pursuant to previously approved budgets) had been reimbursed by the Company. This was not a restriction on SAS since SAS is not controlled by the Company and could have paid any compensation to any person that SAS desires out of its own funds. Since SAS is a "Subchapter S" corporation, all income from SAS is allocated to its stockholders (see above).

 

On May 7, 2018, the Company gave a termination notice to SAS specifying July 31, 2018, as the end of the Service Term under (and as defined in) SAS Agreement signed in 2016.  The Company has reached a non-exclusive agreement with an independent third party vendor to provide substantially all of the domestic Field Administrators used by the Company.  The Company transitioned to such new vendor during July 2018, and it was virtually unnoticeable to the Company's clients.    

 

Although neither SBS nor SAS has provided or been authorized to perform any services to the Company after their terminations described above effective on or before July 31, 2018, they have apparently continued to operate and claim that the Company owes them for all of their post-termination expenses for the foreseeable future.  For the period from August through March 31, 2019, SBS has invoiced the Company for approximately $124,000, and SAS has invoiced the Company for approximately $108,000 for the same period.  All such invoices have been rejected by the Company.  The Company has determined that it is not obligated to reimburse any such post-termination expense (other than for potentially reimbursing SAS for mutually approved reasonable short term ordinary course transition expenses in previously allowed categories needed by SAS to wind down its business, if any), and that such a payment would be an impermissible gift to a related party under applicable law, which determinations have been supported by SGRP's Audit Committee.  The SBS invoices included legal expenses for its continuing defense in the Clothier Case even though SGRP on June 13, 2018, gave SBS notice that it would no longer reimburse any such expenses as a result of SGRP's separate settlement of the Clothier Case.   See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters, below. 

 

The Company expects that SBS and SAS may use every available means to attempt to collect reimbursement from the Company for the foreseeable future for all of their post-termination expense, including repeated litigation. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters, below.

 

On November 23, 2018, SBS petitioned for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. District for Nevada (the "SBS Chapter 11 Case"), and as a result, the claims of SBS' creditors must now generally be pursued in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. The Company believes there can be no assurance that SBS will ever be able to fully pay any damage award resulting from any determination in the Clothier Case or any other judgment or similar amount resulting from any legal determination adverse to SBS. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Related Party Litigation and SBS Bankruptcy, below, and SBS Bankruptcy, below.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

Any failure of SBS to satisfy any judgment or similar amount resulting from any adverse legal determination against SBS, any claim by SBS, SAS, any other related party or any third party that the Company is somehow liable for any such judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS or SAS or any other related party, any judicial determination that the Company is somehow liable for any such judgment or similar amount imposed against SBS or SAS or any other related party (in whole or in part), or any increase in the Company's use of employees (rather than the services of independent contractors provided by third parties) to perform Field Specialist services domestically, in each case in whole or in part, could have a material adverse effect on the Company or its performance or condition (including its assets, business, clients, capital, cash flow, credit, expenses, financial condition, income, legal costs liabilities, liquidity, locations, marketing, operations, prospects, sales, strategies, taxation or other achievement, results or condition), whether actual or as planned, intended, anticipated, estimated or otherwise expected. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters, below.

 

Current material and potentially material legal proceedings impacting the Company are described in Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies - Legal Matters, below.  These descriptions are based on an independent review by the Company and do not reflect the views of SBS, its management or its counsel.  Furthermore, even though SBS was solely responsible for its operations, methods and legal compliance, in connection with any proceedings against SBS, SBS continues to claim that the Company is somehow liable to reimburse SBS for its expenses in those proceedings. The Company does not believe there is any basis for such claims and would defend them vigorously.

 

Infotech is currently suing the Company in New York seeking reimbursement for approximately $190,000 respecting alleged lost tax benefits and other expenses it claims to have incurred in connection with SGRP's acquisition of its Brazilian subsidiary and previously denied by both management and SGRP's Audit Committee, who had jurisdiction because Infotech is a related party. Infotech also is threatening to sue the Company in Romania for approximately $900,000 for programming services allegedly owed to the Company's former Romanian subsidiary (sold at book value to Infotech in 2013) and not provided to Infotech, for which the Company vigorously denies liability. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters -- Related Party Litigation, below.

 

Peter W. Brown was appointed as a Director on the SGRP Board as of May 3, 2018, replacing Mr. Robert G. Brown upon his retirement from the Board and Company at that date.  He is not considered independent because Peter Brown an affiliate and related party in respect of SGRP and was proposed by Mr. Robert G. Brown to represent the Brown family interests.  He worked for and is a stockholder of SAS (see above) and certain of its affiliates, he is the nephew of Mr. Robert G. Brown (a current significant stockholder of SGRP and SGRP's former Chairman and director), he is a director of SPAR Brasil Serviços de Merchandising e Tecnologia S.A., a Brazilian corporation ("SPAR BSMT") and owns Earth Investments LLC, ("EILLC"), which owns 10% interest in the SGRP's Brazilian subsidiary.

 

National Merchandising Services, LLC ("NMS"), is a consolidated domestic subsidiary of the Company and is owned jointly by SGRP through its indirect ownership of 51% of the NMS membership interests and by National Merchandising of America, Inc. ("NMA"), through its ownership of the other 49% of the NMS membership interests. Mr. Edward Burdekin is the Chief Executive Officer and President and a director of NMS and also is an executive officer and director of NMA. Ms. Andrea Burdekin, Mr. Burdekin's wife, is the sole stockholder and a director of NMA and a director of NMS. NMA is an affiliate of the Company but is not under the control of or consolidated with the Company. Mr. Burdekin also owns 100% of National Store Retail Services ("NSRS"). Since September 2018, NSRS provided substantially all of the domestic merchandising specialist field force used by NMS. For those services, NMS agrees to reimburse NSRS the total costs for providing those services and to pay NSRS a premium equal to 1.0% of its total cost.

 

Resource Plus of North Florida, Inc. ("RPI"), is a consolidated domestic subsidiary of the Company and is owned jointly by SGRP through its indirect ownership of 51% of the RPI membership interests and by Mr. Richard Justus through his ownership of the other 49% of the RPI membership interests. Mr. Justus has a 50% ownership interest in RJ Holdings which owns the buildings where RPI is headquartered and operates. Both buildings are subleased to RPI at local market rates.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

International Related Party Services:

 

SGRP Meridian (Pty), Ltd. ("Meridian") is a consolidated international subsidiary of the Company and is owned 51% by SGRP and 23% by FRIEDSHELF 401 Proprietary Limited (owned by Mr. Brian Mason and Mr. Garry Bristow) and 26% by Lindicom Proprietary Limited. Mr. Mason is President and a director and Mr. Bristow is an officer and director of Meridian. Mr. Mason is also an officer and director and 50% shareholder of Merhold Property Trust ("MPT"). Mr. Mason and Mr. Bristow are both officers and directors and both own 50% of Merhold Cape Property Trust ("MCPT"). Mr. Mason and Mr. Bristow are officers and owners of Merhold Holding Trust ("MHT") which provides similar services like MPT. MPT owns the building where Meridian is headquartered and also owns 20 vehicles, all of which are subleased to Meridian. MCPT provides a fleet of 172 vehicles to Meridian under a 4 year lease program. These leases are provided to Meridian at local market rates included in the summary table below.

 

SPAR Todopromo is a consolidated international subsidiary of the Company and is owned 51% by SGRP and 49% by the following individuals: Mr. Juan F. Medina Domenzain, Juan Medina Staines, Julia Cesar Hernandez Vanegas, and Jorge Medina Staines. Mr. Juan F. Medina Domenzain is an officer and director of SPAR Todopromo and is also majority shareholder (90%) of CONAPAD ("CON") which supplied administrative and operational consulting support to SPAR Todopromo in 2016.

 

Mr. Juan F. Medina Domenzain ("JFMD"), partner in SPAR Todopromo, leased a warehouse to SPAR Todopromo. The lease expires on December 31, 2020.

 

On September 8, 2016, the Company (through its Cayman Islands subsidiary) acquired 100% ownership of SGRP Brasil Participações Ltda. ("SGRP Holdings"), a Brazilian limitada (which is a form of limited liability company). SGRP Holdings then completed the formation and acquired a majority of the stock of SPAR Brasil Serviços de Merchandising e Tecnologia S.A., a Brazilian corporation ("SPAR BSMT"). SGRP Holdings and SPAR BSMT are consolidated subsidiaries of the Company. SPAR BSMT is owned 51% by the Company, 39% by JK Consultoria Empresarial Ltda.-ME, a Brazilian limitada ("JKC"), and 10% by Earth Investments, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("EILLC").

 

JKC is owned by Mr. Jonathan Dagues Martins, a Brazilian citizen and resident ("JDM") and his sister, Ms. Karla Dagues Martins, a Brazilian citizen and resident. JDM is the Chief Executive Officer and President of each SPAR Brazil company pursuant to a Management Agreement between JDM and SPAR BSMT dated September 13, 2016. JDM also is a director of SPAR BSMT. Accordingly, JKC and JDM are each a related party in respect of the Company. EILLC is owned by Mr. Peter W. Brown, a citizen and resident of the USA ("PWB") and a director of SPAR BSMT and SGRP and nephew of SGRP"s largest shareholder, Robert G. Brown. Accordingly, PWB and EILLC are each a related party in respect of the Company.

 

SPAR BSMT has contracted with Ms. Karla Dagues Martins, a Brazilian citizen and resident and JDM's sister and a part owner of SPAR BSMT, to handle the labor litigation cases for SPAR BSMT and its subsidiaries.  These legal services are being provided to them at local market rates by Ms. Martins' company, Karla Martins Sociedade de Advogados ("KMSA"). Accordingly, Mr. Jonathan Dagues Martins and Ms. Karla Dagues Martins are each an affiliate and a related party in respect of the Company.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

Summary of Certain Related Party Transactions:

 

The following costs of affiliates were charged to the Company (in thousands):

 

 

* Includes substantially all overhead (in the case of SAS and SBS), or related overhead, plus any applicable markup. The services provided by SAS and SBS were terminated as of July 2018.

 

 

(1)     Represent loans from the local investors into the Company's subsidiaries (representing their proportionate share of working capital loans). The loans have no payment terms and are due on demand and as such have been classified as current liabilities in the Company's consolidated financial statements.

 

Affinity Insurance:

 

In addition to the above, through August 1, 2018, SAS purchased insurance coverage from Affinity Insurance, Ltd. ("Affinity") for worker compensation, casualty and property insurance risk for itself, for SBS on behalf of Field Specialists that require such insurance coverage (if they do not provide their own), and for the Company. SAS owns a minority (less than 1%) of the common stock in Affinity. Based on informal arrangements between the parties, the Affinity insurance premiums for such coverage were ultimately charged (through SAS) for their fair share of the costs of that insurance to SMF, SAS (which then charges the Company) and SBS. Since August 1, 2018, the new independent vendor providing the Company's Field Administrators also is a member of and provided such insurance through Affinity for itself and on behalf of the Field Specialists that require such insurance coverage (if they do not provide their own), and the Company is obtaining its own such insurance through Affinity (in which the Company is also now a member).

 

In addition to those required periodic premiums, Affinity also requires payment of cash collateral deposits ("Cash Collateral"), and Cash Collateral amounts are initially determined and from time to time re-determined (upward or downward) by Affinity. From 2013 through August 1, 2018, SAS deposited Cash Collateral with Affinity that now totals approximately $965,000; approximately $379,000 of that Cash Collateral was allocable to SBS and approximately $296,000 of that Cash Collateral was allocable to SMF and the balance of approximately $290,000 was allocated to other affiliates of the Company. The Cash Collateral deposits allocable to SBS have been paid by SAS on behalf of SBS, SAS received advances to make such payments from SBS, and SBS in turn received advances to make such payments from SMF. $675,000 of the Cash Collateral deposits allocable to SAS have been paid with advances to make such payments from SMF. The Cash Collateral deposits allocable to SMF have been paid by SAS on behalf of SMF, and SAS received advances to make such payments from SMF. At the time those advances were requested by Mr. Brown be made by the Company to SAS and SBS, they were not specifically disclosed by Mr. Robert G. Brown (then SGRP executive Chairman), Mr. William H. Bartels (SGRP Vice Chairman then and now) or Mr. James R. Segreto (Chief Financial Officer), to or approved by the Audit Committee or Board (as a related party transaction or otherwise), and at the time Mr. Brown and Mr. Bartels were the sole owners and executives of SAS and SBS. In addition to funding such Cash Collateral, the Company believes that it has provided (after 1999) all of the funds for all premium payments to and equity investments in Affinity and that the Company may be owed related amounts by SAS, SBS and their affiliates.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

The Company also has advanced money to SAS to prepay Affinity insurance premiums (which in the case of workers compensation insurance are a percentage of payroll).  The Company had advanced approximately $226,000 to SAS for the 2019-2020 Affinity plan year based on estimates that assumed SBS and SAS would be providing services to the Company for the full plan year.  However, the Company terminated their services at the end of July 2018 therefore, that insurance was required for only one month's payroll.  Upon completion of the Affinity audit for the Affinity 2019-2020 plan year, the Company anticipates that SAS will receive a premium refund from Affinity of approximately $150,000 and will be obligated to repay that amount to the Company.

 

Affinity from time to time may (in the case of a downward adjustment in such periodic premiums or the Cash Collateral) make refunds, rebates or other returns of such periodic premiums and Cash Collateral deposits to SAS for the benefit of itself, SBS and SMF (including any premium refund, as returned or returnable, "Affinity Returns"). The Company believes that SAS is obligated to return to SMF any and all Affinity Returns allocable to SMF in repayment of the corresponding advances from SMF and allocable to SAS in repayment of the corresponding advances from SMF. The Company also believes that SAS is obligated to return to SBS, and SBS is obligated to return to SMF, any and all Affinity Returns allocable to SBS in repayment of the corresponding advances. The Company believes that SBS and SAS will have limited operations after August 1, 2018, that the litigation and likely resulting financial difficulties facing SBS are significant, and that without adequate security, those circumstances puts such repayments to the Company at a material risk.

 

SMF had been in negotiations with SBS and SAS (respectively represented by Robert G. Brown and William H. Bartels, who together own over 59% of SGRP's common stock) since November 2017 for reimbursement and security agreements to document and secure those advances and repayment obligations, which advances total approximately $675,000. Although SBS and SAS had orally accepted those agreements in principal, the negotiations have recently broken down over their refusal to allow enforceable first priority security interests in the Cash Collateral and SAS's policies with and equity interests in Affinity, as well as their demands for post-termination payments and offsets potentially larger than the Cash Collateral. As a result the Company has recorded a reserve for the full $901,000 in such receivables in 2018. The Company is exploring its legal options for recovering the Affinity Returns from SAS and SBS.  See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies, below.

 

The Company has filed a claim for $375,000 respecting the Affinity Cash Collateral loan to SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Proceeding. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- SBS Bankruptcy, below.

 

Other Related Party Transactions and Arrangements:

 

In July 1999, SMF, SBS and SIT entered into a perpetual software ownership agreement providing that each party independently owned an undivided share of and has the right to unilaterally license and exploit certain portions of the Company's proprietary scheduling, tracking, coordination, reporting and expense software (the "Co-Owned Software") are co-owned with SBS and Infotech and each entered into a non-exclusive royalty-free license from the Company to use certain "SPAR" trademarks in the United States (the "Licensed Marks"). As a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case, SBS' rights in the Co-Owned Software and Licensed Marks are assets of SBS' estate, subject to sale or transfer in any court approved reorganization or liquidation. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- Legal Matters, Related Party Litigation and SBS Bankruptcy, below.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

Through arrangements with the Company, SBS (owned by Mr. Brown and prior to December 2018 was owned by Mr. Bartels), SAS (owned by Mr. Bartels and family members of Mr. Brown), and other companies owned by Mr. Brown participate in various benefit plans, insurance policies and similar group purchases by the Company, for which the Company charges them their allocable shares of the costs of those group items and the actual costs of all items paid specifically for them. All such transactions between the Company and the above affiliates are paid and/or collected by the Company in the normal course of business.

 

SBS Bankruptcy

 

The Company received no services from SBS after the termination of SBS' services took effect. Furthermore, even though SBS was solely responsible for its operations, methods and legal compliance, SBS continues to claim that the Company is somehow liable to reimburse SBS for its expenses in those proceedings. The Company does not believe there is any basis for such claims and would defend them vigorously. The Company anticipates that SBS may use every available means to attempt to collect reimbursement from the Company for the foreseeable future for all of its post-termination expense. See Domestic Transactions, above.

 

On November 23, 2018, SBS petitioned for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. District for Nevada (the "SBS Chapter 11 Case"), so the pre-petition claims of SBS' creditors must now have to be made in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On March 11, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in the SBS Chapter 11 Case to permit the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case to proceed with the second part of their case to determine damages in the same California Court that rendered the Clothier Determination. The Bankruptcy Court did not modify the automatic stay to permit collection of any resulting damage award from SBS absent further Bankruptcy Court order, and absent such further order, any damage award in Clothier Case will therefore have to be pursued as against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case.

 

On the advice of SGRP's bankruptcy counsel, management reported and the Audit Committee agreed that while SBS is in the SBS Chapter 11 Case; (a) SBS cannot legally pay the third-party pre-petition invoices and other emailed claims sent via email from SBS to the Company, which are unsecured claims ordinarily payable in chapter 11 as part of the unsecured creditor claim pool (potentially pennies or less per dollar) without specific legal authorization or court order (including under a Bankruptcy Court approved reorganization plan, which is the usual mechanism for paying non-priority claims in a chapter 11 case); (b) any SGRP payment to SBS would likely be utilized to fund the SBS Chapter 11 Case and after that to pay the Clothier claims and other unsecured claimants; (c) SGRP and SMF claims against SBS (including, without limitation, reimbursement claims for funding the Affinity Security Deposits and field payment checks that would have otherwise bounced and indemnification for the Clothier settlement and legal costs) must be and have been asserted in the SBS Chapter 11 Case and can only be satisfied in that case through a Court permitted setoff (potentially dollar-for-dollar), or from the unsecured creditor pool (potentially pennies or less per dollar); (d) any resolution of claims between SBS and SGRP sought (at this time) by SBS from the Bankruptcy Court requires such court's approval after notice to creditors (including the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case) and the U.S. Trustee, so finality can only be achieved in the SBS Chapter 11 Case; and (e) when SBS seeks payment through the Bankruptcy Court (whether for pre- or post-petition claims), SGRP has the right to defend them on the merits and to assert an offset for amounts owed to SMF and SGRP (potentially dollar-for-dollar).

 

Accordingly, Management recommended and the Audit Committee agreed that it would be in the best interest of all stockholders: (i) to submit SGRP and SMF claims against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case in order to preserve their value (including as an offset against SBS' claims), particularly since those claims against SBS exceed amounts potentially owed to SBS; (ii) not to voluntarily pay any SBS obligations directly to targeted SBS creditors, as such payments would reduce that offset value (potentially dollar-for-dollar), subvert the bankruptcy process and potentially expose SGRP and SMF to direct future liability (for example, liability for a lawsuit if SGRP voluntarily pays for its defense); and (iii) only to make payments to or on behalf of SBS to the extent proven and required in the SBS Chapter 11 Case or other court with jurisdiction over the dispute.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

As a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case, the claims of SBS' creditors must now generally be pursued in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On March 11, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in the SBS Chapter 11 Case to permit the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case to proceed with the second part of the case to determine damages against SBS in the same California Court that rendered the Clothier Determination. However, the Bankruptcy Court did not modify the automatic stay to permit collection from SBS of any resulting damage award against it absent further Bankruptcy Court order, and therefore and absent such further order, any such damage award will have to be pursued against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. Accordingly, the Company believes there can be no assurance that SBS will ever be able to fully pay any such damage award resulting from any determination in the Clothier Case or any other judgment or similar amount resulting from any legal determination adverse to SBS.

 

A review of the SBS' filings in the SBS Chapter 11 Case shows that SBS has listed the Company as a contingent, unliquidated, disputed creditor, but in its most recently filed amended schedules in that Case, SBS has not expressly scheduled any claims of SBS against the Company. In this regard, on January 10, 2019, SBS filed schedules that reflected a note receivable in the amount of $300,000 due from the Company. However, on both February 7 and 12, 2019, SBS filed amended schedules that omitted such note receivable. SBS' amended schedules filed on February 12, 2019, reflects a $300,000 increase in SBS' accounts receivable. None of those schedules name the companies owing those receivables. In depositions Mr. Brown has testified as to various amounts that may be owed to SBS by various parties (including the Company) but the Company has not been able to independently verify the accuracy of such testimony, and any such testimony would not be conclusive evidence or proof of such claim against the Company, and could be corrected or disclaimed as an error afterwards. In any event, the Company believes that it owes nothing to SBS while the Company has substantial claims asserted against SBS.

 

On March 18, 2019, the Company filed claims in the SBS Chapter 11 Case seeking reimbursement for $378,838 for SMF's funding of the Affinity Security Deposits and $12,963 for SMF's funding of the field payment checks that would have otherwise bounced, and $1,839,459 for indemnification of SGRP for the Clothier settlement (see below) and legal costs and an unspecified amount for indemnification of SGRP for the Hogan action (see Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements, Commitments and Contingencies - Legal Matters - SBS Clothier Litigation, below) and other yet to be discovered indemnified claims.

 

6.	Preferred Stock

 

SGRP's certificate of incorporation authorizes it to issue 3,000,000 shares of preferred stock with a par value of $0.01 per share (the "SGRP Preferred Stock"), which may have such preferences and priorities over the SGRP Common Stock and other rights, powers and privileges as the Company's Board of Directors may establish in its discretion from time to time. The Company has created and authorized the issuance of a maximum of 3,000,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock pursuant to SGRP's Certificate of Designation of Series "A" Preferred Stock (the "SGRP Series A Preferred Stock"), which have dividend and liquidation preferences, have a cumulative dividend of 10% per year, are redeemable at the Company's option and are convertible at the holder's option (and without further consideration) on a one-to-one basis into SGRP Common Stock. The Company issued 554,402 of SGRP shares to affiliated retirement plans, which were all converted into common shares in 2011 (including dividends earned thereon), leaving 2,445,598 shares of remaining authorized preferred stock. At March 31, 2019, no shares of SGRP Series A Preferred Stock were issued and outstanding.

 

7.	Stock-Based Compensation and Other Plans

 

In connection with the 2018 Annual Meeting, the Board, based (in part) on the recommendation of its Compensation Committee, approved the modification of the proposed SPAR Group, Inc. 2018 Stock Compensation Plan (the "2018 Plan") to remove all adjustments for prior plans, continuing awards and share recycling, which the Board determined was within its authority and not materially adverse to the interest of SGRP's existing stockholders. The SPAR Group, Inc. 2018 Stock Compensation Plan (including the above changes) was approved by the stockholders on May 2, 2018.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

The 2018 Plan and information regarding options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock and restricted stock units granted thereunder are summarized below. The 2018 Plan is substantially similar to the 2008 Plan except for its one-year initial term and resetting the maximum award shares available to 600,000 under the 2018 Plan. The 2008 Plan terminated upon the adoption of the 2018 Plan, and thereafter no further Awards may be made under the 2008 Plan. There were approximately 345,750 SGRP shares remaining for grant Awards that were cancelled at that date.

 

The 2018 Plan has an initial term that ends on May 31, 2019, and no Award may be granted thereafter under this Plan, unless an extension or elimination of such initial term Plan is approved by stockholders of SGRP if and as required pursuant to the 2018 Plan. In any event, no Award may be granted under the 2018 Plan on or after the tenth (10th) anniversary of the Effective Date of the 2018 Plan unless an extension of the term of the 2018 Plan is approved by stockholders of SGRP if and as required pursuant to the 2018 Plan and Applicable Law. Awards granted prior to the end of the term of the 2018 Plan shall continue to be governed by the 2018 Plan (which 2018 Plan shall continue in full force and effect for that purpose).

 

The 2018 Plan resets and limits the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to Awards made under the plan to 600,000 shares (the "2018 Plan Maximum").

 

The 2018 Plan will permit the granting of Awards consisting of options to purchase shares of Common Stock ("Options"), stock appreciation rights ("SARs"), restricted stock ("Restricted Stock"), and restricted stock units ("RSUs"). The 2018 Plan permits the granting of both Options that qualify under Section 422 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended (the "Code") for treatment as incentive stock options ("Incentive Stock Options" or "ISOs") and Options that do not qualify under the Code as Incentive Stock Options ("Nonqualified Stock Options" or "NQSOs"). ISOs may only be granted to employees of SGRP or its subsidiaries.

 

The shares of Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to the Options, SARs, Restricted Stock and RSUs under the 2018 Plan are all subject to the 2018 Plan Maximum.

 

SGRP has granted restricted stock and stock option awards to its eligible directors, officers and employees and certain employees of its affiliates respecting shares of Common Stock issued by SGRP ("SGRP Shares") pursuant to SGRP's 2008 Stock Compensation Plan (as amended, the "2008 Plan"), which was approved by SGRP's stockholders in May of 2008 and 2009. The 2008 Plan provides for the granting of restricted SGRP shares, stock options to purchase SGRP shares (either incentive or nonqualified), and restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights and other awards based on SGRP shares ("Awards") to SGRP Directors and the Company's specified executives, employees and consultants (which are employees of certain of its affiliates), although to date SGRP has not issued any permissible form of Award other than stock option, restricted share awards, and performance stock units. At the May 3, 2018 Annual meeting of stockholders, the 2008 Plan was terminated. At that time, the 2018 Plan was approved by SGRP’s stockholders.

 

As of March 31, 2019, approximately 325,000 shares were available for Award grants under the 2018 Plan. In the first quarter, there were no options awarded. As of May 15, there were 310,000 shares awarded, leaving 15,000 shares of SGRP's common stock available for grant under the 2018 Plan.

 

The Company recognized $46,000 and $43,000 in stock-based compensation expense relating to stock option awards during the three month periods ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The tax benefit available from stock based compensation expense related to stock option during both the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018 was approximately $11,000. As of March 31, 2019, total unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to stock options was $365,000.

 

During the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company recognized approximately $3,000 and $6,000, respectively of stock based compensation expense related to restricted stock. The tax benefit available to the Company from stock based compensation expense related to restricted stock during the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018 was approximately $1,000 and $2,000, respectively. As of March 31, 2019, total unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to unvested restricted stock Awards was $2,000.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

8.	Commitments and Contingencies

 

Legal Matters

 

The Company is a party to various legal actions and administrative proceedings arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of Company's management, resolution of these matters is not anticipated to have a material adverse effect on the Company or its estimated or desired affiliates, assets, business, clients, capital, cash flow, credit, expenses, financial condition, income, legal costs, liabilities, liquidity, locations, marketing, operations, prospects, sales, strategies, taxation or other achievement, results or condition.

 

RELATED PARTIES AND RELATED PARTY LITIGATION:

 

SPAR Business Services, Inc., f/k/a SPAR Marketing Services, Inc. ("SBS"), SPAR Administrative Services, Inc. ("SAS"), and SPAR InfoTech, Inc. (" Infotech "), have provided services from time to time to the Company and are related parties and affiliates of SGRP, but are not under the control or part of the consolidated Company. SBS is an affiliate because it is owned by Robert G. Brown and William H. Bartels. SAS is an affiliate because it is owned by William H. Bartels and certain relatives of Robert G. Brown or entities controlled by them (each of whom are considered affiliates of the Company for related party purposes). Infotech is an affiliate because it is owned by Robert G. Brown. See Note 5 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Related Party Transactions – Domestic Transactions, above. Mr. Brown and Mr. Bartels are the Majority Stockholders (see below) and founders of SGRP, Mr. Brown was Chairman and an officer and director of SGRP through May 3, 3018 (when he retired), and Mr. Bartels was and continues to be Vice Chairman and a director and officer of SGRP. Mr. Brown and Mr. Bartels also have been and are stockholders, directors and executive officers of various other affiliates of SGRP.

 

Delaware Litigation Settlement

 

On January 18, 2019, SGRP, Robert G. Brown, a substantial stockholder of SGRP and former Executive Chairman and director of SGRP, William H. Bartels, a substantial stockholder of SGRP and current Vice Chairman and director and officer of SGRP (together with Robert G. Brown, the "Majority Stockholders"), and Christiaan Olivier, Chief Executive Officer, President and a Director of SGRP, and all four of the members of the Governance Committee, namely Lorrence T. Kellar, Chairman, and Jack W. Partridge, Arthur B. Drogue and R. Eric McCarthey (together with Mr. Olivier, the "225 Defendants"), reached a settlement (the "Settlement") in the By-Laws Action and the 225 Action as such terms are defined below (collectively, the "Actions) and had the Actions then dismissed.

 

On September 4, 2018, SGRP filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") a claim, C.A. No. 2018-0650, which it amended on September 21, 2018 (the "By-Laws Action "), in a Verified Complaint Seeking Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against the Majority Stockholders. SGRP sought to invalidate the proposed amendments to SGRP's By-Laws put forth in a written consent by the Majority Stockholders (the "Proposed Amendments") because the Board's Governance Committee believed that the Proposed Amendments would have negatively impacted all stockholders (particularly minority stockholders) by (among other things) weakening the independence of the Board through new supermajority requirements, eliminating the Board's independent majority requirement, and subjecting various functions of the Board respecting vacancies on the Board to the prior approval of the holders of a majority of the Common Stock (i.e., the Majority Stockholders), and thus also potentially reducing the representation of SGRP's minority stockholders.

 

On September 18, 2018, Robert G Brown (one of the Majority Stockholders) commenced an action in the Court pursuant to 8 Del. C. §225(a) from (C.A. No. 2018-00687-TMR) (the "225 Action") against the 225 Defendants seeking to remove Lorrence T. Kellar from the Board and add Jeffrey Mayer to the Board.

 

On September 20, 2018, the Court issued a Status Quo Order in the 225 Action (the "Status Quo Order") that (among other things) seated Jeffrey Mayer on the Board, provided for Lorrence T. Kellar to remain seated on the Board, and effectively increased the Board size from seven to eight for the duration of the order.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

The By-Laws Action was dismissed upon the filing of the Stipulation of Dismissal. On January 23, 2019, the Court granted the dismissal of the 225 Action and vacated its previously entered Status Quo Order entered in that action.

 

As part of the Settlement, on January 18, 2019, the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the "Board") appointed Jeffrey Mayer to the Board and accepted Lorrence T. Kellar's retirement from the Board. The Board also appointed Mr. Mayer to the Board's Compensation Committee on the recommendation of its Governance Committee.

 

Mr. Mayer was first seated on the Board on November 20, 2018, pursuant to the Status Quo Order (see Settled Actions above), which order has now been vacated. Mr. Mayer had previously been determined not to be independent because he was unilaterally chosen by the Majority Stockholders, so as a result of the Status Quo Order and resulting change in Board composition, SGRP received a notification letter from Nasdaq dated December 13, 2018, stating that SGRP no longer satisfies Nasdaq's majority independent director requirement (the "Nasdaq Board Independence Deficiency"), as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(b)(1).

 

In connection with the Settlement, the Governance Committee re-evaluated the independence of Mr. Mayer, based on (among other things) Mr. Mayer's independent business skills and contribution to the Settlement process, determined that he has the requisite independence from the management of the Corporation except for the Related Party Matters (as defined below), and accordingly Mr. Mayer: (a) will be an independent director for all purposes other than any Related Party Matter; (b) will be a non-independent director respecting any Related Party Matter; and (c) may participate in discussions but will be excluded and shall recuse himself from any and all decisions of the Board and applicable Board Committees respecting any Related Party Matter. "Related Party Matter" shall mean any payment to or for, or any transaction or litigation with, Robert G. Brown, William H. Bartels, any of their respective family members, or any company or other business or entity directly or indirectly owned or controlled by any one or more of Mr. Brown, Mr. Bartels or their respective family members.

 

The Governance Committee and the Board believe that such re-evaluation and redetermination (together with the 2019 Restated By-Laws described below) will help the Corporation maintain the independent Board desired by the Governance Committee and the Board and required under Nasdaq rules, and correct the Nasdaq Board Independence Deficiency.

 

In the Settlement the parties agreed to amend and restate SGRP's By-Laws (the "2019 Restated By-Laws") with negotiated changes to the Proposed Amendments that preserve the current roles of the Governance Committee and Board in the location, evaluation, and selection of candidates for director and in the nominations of those candidates for the annual stockholders meeting and appointment of those candidates to fill Board vacancies (other than those under a stockholder written consent making a removal and appointment, which is unchanged). The Board approved and adopted the 2019 Restated By-Laws on January 18, 2018. The Governance Committee and the Board believe that those changes in the 2019 Restated By-Laws will help the Corporation maintain the independent Board desired by them.

 

In addition to the compromise provisions described above in Settlement Terms above, the Governance Committee and Board accepted certain of the Proposed Amendments with negotiated changes and clarifications that are now contained in the 2019 Restated By-Laws, including the following:

 

●

Any vacancy that results from the death, retirement or resignation of a director that remains unfilled by the directors for more than 90 days may be filled by the stockholders.

●

Certain stockholder proposals may now be made up to the 90th day prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year's Annual Meeting.

●

The Board size has been fixed at seven and can only be changed by the stockholders (as provided in the Proposed Amendments).

●

The section requiring majority Board independence has been removed (as provided in the Proposed Amendments).

●

The By-Laws now require that each candidate for director sign a written irrevocable letter of resignation and retirement effective upon such person failing to be re-elected by the required majority stockholder vote.

●

A "super majority" vote of at least 75% of all directors is now required for (and any two directors can block) any of the following (as provided in the Proposed Amendments):

o

Issuance of more than 500,000 shares of stock (other than under the Corporation's stock compensation plans);

o

Issuance of any preferred stock;

o

Declaration of any non-cash dividend on the shares of capital stock of the Corporation;

o

By-Laws modification;

o

Formation or expansion of the authority of any Committee or subcommittee; or

o

Appointment or removal of any Committee director.

 

The descriptions of the negotiated compromise 2019 Restated By-Laws above are qualified in their entirety by reference to the copy of the 2019 Restated By-Laws.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

As part of the Settlement of the Actions, the parties to the Actions executed a Limited Mutual Release Agreement limited to the Actions and subject to specific exclusions (the "Release") and the parties to the Actions mutually agreed upon Stipulations of Dismissal ending those actions without prejudice and without admission or retraction of any fact cited therein, and the parties caused them to be filed with the Court on January 18, 2019.

 

The Releases are limited to matters related to those actions described therein and subject to specific exclusions, and the parties expressly preserved all unrelated actions and claims. Accordingly, there remain a number of unresolved claims and actions (each a "Non-Settled Matter") between the Company and the following Related Parties (as defined below), including (without limitation), post termination claims by and against SPAR Business Services, Inc. (which is now in a voluntary bankruptcy proceeding in Nevada), and SPAR Administrative Services, Inc., the lawsuit by SPAR InfoTech, Inc., against the Company, and the Bartels Advancement Claim and the claim by Mr. Brown for a similar advancement (see Advancement Claims, below).

 

Advancement Claims

 

In an email to Arthur Drogue, SGRP's Chairman, on October 3, 2018, and in subsequent calls with him, William H. Bartels, a substantial stockholder of SGRP and current Vice Chairman and director and officer of SGRP (and one of the Majority Stockholders), requested indemnification for his legal fees and expenses incurred in his defense of the By-Laws Case brought by SGRP against him and Mr. Brown.

 

On November 2, 2018, in a letter from his counsel, Mr. Bartels demanded advancement of his proportionate share of the legal fees and expenses incurred in his defense of the By-Laws Case against him.

 

SGRP's Audit Committee determined on November 5, 2018, that Mr. Bartels was not entitled to indemnification by SGRP for his fees and expenses incurred in his defense of the By-Laws Case because (among other things) Mr. Bartels was sued predominately as a stockholder in the By-Laws Case and not as a director and the By-Laws Case alleged numerous instances of improper conduct by Mr. Bartels that could preclude indemnification under the Corporation's By-Laws. However, the Audit Committee made no determination regarding improper conduct or the issue of advancement.

 

On November 28, 2018, Mr. Bartels filed with the Court a Verified Complaint For Advancement against SGRP (the "Bartels Advancement Complaint") seeking advancement of his proportionate share of the legal fees and expenses incurred in the By-Laws Case against him ("Allocated By-Laws Expenses"). In evaluating the Bartels Advancement Complaint, counsel advised SGRP that generally advancement was somewhat different than indemnification in that money was advanced on the condition (which Bartels have accepted in writing) that the advances be repaid if indemnification was determined to be improper on the grounds of improper conduct or otherwise.

 

In December 2018 SGRP reached agreement with Mr. Bartels through counsel to conditionally make his reasonably documented Allocated By-Laws Expenses (the "Bartels Advancement Settlement"), pursuant to which payment to Mr. Bartels of the accepted Allocated By-Laws Expenses was made in April 2019. If Mr. Bartels is ultimately determined not to be entitled to indemnification, he could still be obligated to return all amounts advanced to him by SGRP.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

On December 3, 2018, Robert G. Brown sent an email to Mr. McCarthey, Chairman of SGRP's Audit Committee, demanding advancement from SGRP for his proportionate share of the legal fees and expenses incurred by him in the By-Laws Case against him (the "Brown Advancement Demand").

 

Counsel advised that Brown had been sued as a stockholder and conspirator in the By-Laws Action against him, and not as a director, and they didn't believe Brown could reasonably and successfully bring or wage a lawsuit for advancement. SGRP, with the support of its Audit Committee, rejected the Brown Advancement Demand, stating that "The bylaw action does not sue you in your capacity as an officer or director of the company.  Section 6.02 of the bylaws requires the proceeding subject to advancement to be brought "by /reason of the Indemnitee's position with the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries … at the request of the Corporation …."  This provision does not, and was not intended to, cover shareholders for advancement. 

 

On January 27, 2019, Mr. Brown sent a draft of his proposed Delaware litigation complaint in an email to Arthur Drogue, SGRP's Chairman, threatening to sue SGRP respecting the Brown Advancement Demand, which he repeated in an email to Mr. McCarthey on February 2, 2019. No such complaint has been filed by Mr. Brown through May 6, 2019, and SGRP continues to deny the Brown Advancement Demand.

 

SBS Bankruptcy

 

The Company received no services from SBS after the termination of SBS' services took effect. Furthermore, even though SBS was solely responsible for its operations, methods and legal compliance, SBS continues to claim that the Company is to reimburse SBS for its expenses in various cases and state proceedings. The Company anticipates that SBS may use every available means to attempt to collect reimbursement from the Company for the foreseeable future for all of their post-termination expense. The Company does not believe there is any basis for such claims and would defend them vigorously. See Note 5 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Related Party Transactions – Domestic Transactions, above.

 

On November 23, 2018, SBS petitioned for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. District for Nevada (the "SBS Chapter 11 Case"), so the pre-petition claims of SBS' creditors now must be made in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On March 11, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in the SBS Chapter 11 Case to permit the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case to proceed with the second part of their case to determine damages in the same California Court that rendered the Clothier Determination. The Bankruptcy Court did not modify the automatic stay to permit collection of any resulting damage award from SBS absent further Bankruptcy Court order, and absent such further order, any damage award in Clothier Case will therefore have to be pursued against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case.

 

On the advice of SGRP's bankruptcy counsel, management reported and the Audit Committee agreed that while SBS is in the SBS Chapter 11 Case; (a) SBS cannot legally pay the third-party pre-petition invoices and other emailed claims sent via email from SBS to the Company, which are non-priority claims (i.e., claims that both are unsecured and lack administrative priority) payable in chapter 11 as part of the unsecured creditor claim pool (potentially pennies or less per dollar) without specific legal authorization or court order (including under a Bankruptcy Court approved reorganization plan, which is the usual mechanism for paying non-priority claims in a chapter 11 case); (b) any SGRP payment to SBS would likely be utilized to fund the SBS Chapter 11 Case and after that to pay the Clothier claims and other non-priority claimants; (c) SGRP and SMF non-priority claims against SBS (including, without limitation, reimbursement claims for funding the Affinity Security Deposits and field payment checks that would have otherwise bounced and indemnification for the Clothier settlement and legal costs) must be and have been asserted in the SBS Chapter 11 Case and can only be satisfied in that case only through a Court permitted setoff (potentially dollar-for-dollar), or from the unsecured creditor pool (potentially pennies or less per dollar); (d) any resolution of claims between SBS and SGRP sought (at this time) by SBS from the Bankruptcy Court requires such court's approval after notice to creditors (including the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case) and the U.S. Trustee, so finality can only be achieved in the SBS Chapter 11 Case; and (e) when SBS seeks payment through the Bankruptcy Court (whether for pre- or post-petition claims), SGRP has the right to defend them on the merits and to assert an offset for amounts owed to SMF and SGRP (potentially dollar-for-dollar).

 

 

Accordingly, Management recommended and the Audit Committee agreed that it would be in the best interest of all stockholders: (i) to submit SGRP and SMF claims against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case in order to preserve their value (including as an offset against SBS' claims), particularly since those claims against SBS exceed amounts potentially owed to SBS; (ii) not to voluntarily pay any SBS obligations directly to targeted SBS creditors, as such payments would reduce that offset value (potentially dollar-for-dollar), subvert the bankruptcy process and potentially expose SGRP and SMF to direct future liability (for example, liability for a lawsuit if SGRP voluntarily pays for its defense); and (iii) only to make payments to or on behalf of SBS to the extent proven and required in the SBS Chapter 11 Case or other court with jurisdiction over the dispute.

 

As a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case, the claims of SBS' creditors must now generally be pursued in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On March 11, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in the SBS Chapter 11 Case to permit the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case to proceed with the second part of the case to determine damages against SBS in the same California Court that rendered the Clothier Determination. However, the Bankruptcy Court did not modify the automatic stay to permit collection from SBS of any resulting damage award against it absent further Bankruptcy Court order, and therefore and absent such further order, any such damage award will have to be pursued against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. Accordingly, the Company believes there can be no assurance that SBS will ever be able to fully pay any such damage award resulting from any determination in the Clothier Case or any other judgment or similar amount resulting from any legal determination adverse to SBS.

 

On March 18, 2019, the Company filed claims in the SBS Chapter 11 Case seeking reimbursement for $378,838 for SMF's funding of the Affinity Security Deposits $12,963 for SMF's funding of the field payment checks that would have otherwise bounced, $1,839,459 for indemnification of SGRP for the Clothier settlement (see below) and legal costs, and an unspecified amount for indemnification of SGRP for the Hogan action (see below) and other yet to be discovered indemnified claims.

 

Infotech Litigation Against SGRP

 

On September 19, 2018, SGRP was served with a Summons and Complaint by SPAR InfoTech, Inc. ("Infotech"), an affiliate of SGRP that is owned principally by Robert G. Brown (one of the Majority Stockholders, a defendant in the By-Laws Action, and the plaintiff in the 225 Action) as plaintiff commencing a case against SGRP entitled SPAR InfoTech, Inc. v. SPAR Group, Inc., et al., Index no. 64452/2018 (Supreme Court, Westchester County) (the "Infotech Action"). The Infotech Action seeks payment from SGRP of approximately $190,000 for alleged lost tax benefits and other expenses that it claims to have incurred in connection with SGRP's acquisition of its Brazilian subsidiary and that were previously denied by both management and SGRP's Audit Committee (which had jurisdiction because Infotech is a related party).

 

In 2016, SGRP acquired SPAR Brasil Serviços de Merchandising e Tecnologia S.A. ("SPAR BSMT"), its Brazilian subsidiary, with the assistance of Robert G. Brown ("Mr. Brown"), who retired as Chairman and an officer and director on May 3, 2018, and his nephew, Peter W. Brown, who became a director on May 3, 2018. Mr. Brown used his private company, Infotech and undisclosed Irish companies to structure the acquisition for SGRP.

 

Mr. Brown also ran his alleged expenses associated with the transaction through Infotech, including large salary allocations for unauthorized personnel and claims for his "lost tax breaks." One of those unauthorized personnel had agreed in her severance agreement with SGRP to never directly or indirectly perform any services for SGRP or any services that could be directly or indirectly billed to SGRP, which restriction was fully disclosed to and known by Mr. Brown and, therefore, Infotech. Mr. Brown submitted his unauthorized and unsubstantiated "expenses" to SGRP, and SGRP's Audit Committee allowed approximately $50,000 of them and disallowed approximately $150,000 of them. Mr. Brown has repeatedly sought payment of the disallowed expenses, and on August 4, 2018, counsel for Infotech (also counsel for SBS and Mr. Brown) sent SGRP a draft complaint for a proposed action by Infotech against SGRP to be filed in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, New York seeking to obtain the disallowed expenses.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

On September 18, 2018, Infotech commenced the Infotech Action seeking to obtain those previously disallowed unauthorized expenses, now totaling approximately $190,000, to circumvent the adverse determination and objection of SGRP's Audit Committee (whose approval is required by applicable law for such a related party payment).

 

The parties are now engaged in pretrial settlement discussions and management has accrued for $75,000 with estimated total liability between $75,000-$90,000.

 

SGRP will vigorously contest the Infotech Action.

 

Infotech also is threatening to sue the Company in Romania for approximately $900,000 for programming services allegedly owed to the Company's former Romanian subsidiary (sold at book value to Infotech in 2013) and not provided to Infotech, for which the Company vigorously denies liability. Infotech has given a draft complaint to the Company.

 

SBS Field Specialist Litigation

 

The Company's merchandising, audit, assembly and other services for its domestic clients are performed by field merchandising, auditing, assembly and other field personnel (each a "Field Specialist") substantially all of whose services were provided to the Company prior to August 2018 by SBS, the Company's affiliate. SBS is not a subsidiary or in any way under the control of SGRP, SBS is not consolidated in the Company's financial statements, SGRP does not manage, direct or control SBS, and SGRP does not participate in or control the defense by SBS of any litigation against it.  The Company terminated its relationship with SBS and received no services from SBS after July 27, 2018.  For affiliation, termination, contractual details and payment amounts, see Note 5 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Related Party Transactions - Domestic Related Party Services, above.

 

The appropriateness of SBS' treatment of Field Specialists as independent contractors has been periodically subject to legal challenge (both currently and historically) by various states and others. SBS' expenses of defending those challenges and other proceedings have historically been reimbursed by the Company under SBS' Prior Agreement, and SBS' expenses of defending those challenges and other proceedings were reimbursed by the Company through the termination of the contract in July 2018, in the amount of $50,000, after determination (on a case by case basis) that those defense expenses were costs of providing services to the Company.

 

In March 2017, the Company advised SBS that, since there was no currently effective comprehensive written services agreement with SBS, the Company would continue to review and decide each request by SBS for reimbursement of its legal defense expenses (including appeals) on a case-by-case basis in its discretion, including the relative costs and benefits to the Company.  See Related Party Transactions - Domestic Related Party Services, above.  SBS has disputed the right of the Company and SGRP's Audit Committee to review and decide the appropriateness of the reimbursement of any of those related party defense and other expense reimbursements.  As provided in SBS' Prior Agreement, the Company is not obligated or liable, and the Company has not otherwise agreed and does not currently intend, to reimburse SBS for any judgment or similar amount (including any damages, settlement, or related tax, penalty, or interest) in any legal challenge or other proceeding against or involving SBS, and the Company does not believe it has ever done so (other than in insignificant nuisance amounts).

 

As a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case (see above), there can be no assurance that SBS will ever be able to satisfy any such judgment or similar claim or amount resulting from any adverse legal determination See Commitments and Contingencies -- SBS Bankruptcy, above.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

As the Company had utilized the services of SBS' Field Specialists to support its in-store merchandising needs in California and SBS' independent contractor classifications had been held invalid in the Clothier Determination (see below), management of the Company determined, with the support of SGRP's Audit Committee and Board of Directors, and began in May of 2018 to shift to an all employee servicing model for Field Specialists to support the performance of the Company's services in California for clients in this critical market.  As previously noted, management currently estimates that the potential incremental annual cost of this change in California from third party independent contractors to Company employees could be substantial. 

 

Due to (among other things) the Clothier Determination and the ongoing proceedings against SBS, which could have had a material adverse effect on SBS' ability to provide future services needed by the Company, and the Company's identification of an independent third party company who would provide comparable services on substantially better terms, the Company terminated the services of SBS effective July 27, 2018, and the Company has engaged that independent third party company to provide the Field Specialist services formerly provided by SBS.

 

Current material and potentially material proceedings against SBS and, in one instance, the Company are described below.   These descriptions are based on an independent review by the Company and do not reflect the views of SBS, its management or its counsel.

 

SBS Clothier Litigation

 

Melissa Clothier was engaged by SBS (then known as SPAR Marketing Services, Inc.) and provided services pursuant to the terms of an "Independent Merchandiser Agreement" with SBS (prepared solely by SBS) acknowledging her engagement as an independent contractor. On June 30, 2014, Ms. Clothier filed suit against SBS and the Company styled Case No. RG12 639317, in the Superior Court in Alameda County, California (the "Clothier Case"), in which Ms. Clothier asserted claims on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated merchandisers in California who are or were classified by SBS as independent contractors at any time between July 16, 2008, and June 30, 2014.  Ms. Clothier alleged that she and other class members were misclassified by SBS as independent contractors and that, as a result of this misclassification, the defendants improperly underpaid them in violation of various California minimum wage and overtime laws.  The Company was originally a defendant in the Clothier Case but was subsequently dismissed from the action without prejudice (meaning it could have joined back into the case). 

 

The court ordered that the case be heard in two phases.  Phase one was limited to the determination of whether members of the class were misclassified as independent contractors.  After hearing evidence, receiving post-trial briefings and considering the issues, the Court issued its Statement of Decision on September 9, 2016, finding that the class members had been misclassified by SBS as independent contractors rather than employees (the "Clothier Determination").  The plaintiffs and SBS have now moved into phase two to determine damages (if any), which has included discovery as to the measure of damages in this case.

 

The plaintiffs and SBS are still proceeding with the damages phase of the Clothier Case, which trial was scheduled for December of 2018 but was temporarily stayed as a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case (see above and below).

 

Facing significant potential damages in the Clothier Case, SGRP chose, and on June 7, 2018, entered into mediation with the plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel in the Clothier Case to try to settle any potential future liability for any possible judgment against SGRP in that case.  SGRP asked SBS to participate financially and provide its knowledge in that mediation, but SBS and its stockholders wanted SGRP to bear the full cost of any settlement and on several occasions they declined or failed to participate in that mediation. SGRP disagreed, insisting on the Majority Stockholders' and SBS' economic participation.  After extensive discussions, SGRP reached a settlement and entered into a memorandum of settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval and not likely to become final until several months into 2019 if and when the settlement is approved by the court.  If approved, SGRP will pay a maximum settlement amount of $1.3 million, payable in four equal annual installments that commence 30 days after the settlement becomes final, and the Company will be released by plaintiff and the settlement class from all other liability under the Clothier Case (the "Clothier Settlement"). SBS did not participate in the Clothier Settlement and will not be released. The Company has recorded a $1.3 million charge for the Clothier Settlement during 2018. On March 21, 2019, the court issued a tentative ruling preliminarily approving the Clothier settlement.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

Since SGRP has no further involvement in the Clothier Case, SGRP stopped paying (as of June 7, 2018) for SBS' legal expenses (defense and appeal) in the Clothier Case and notified SBS.  Defendants continue to demand that those expenses be reimbursed by SGRP.

 

As a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case (see above), the claims of SBS' creditors must now generally be pursued in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On March 11, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in the SBS Chapter 11 Case to permit the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case to proceed with the second part of the case to determine damages against SBS in the same California Court that rendered the Clothier Determination. However, the Bankruptcy Court did not modify the automatic stay to permit collection from SBS of any resulting damage award against it absent further Bankruptcy Court order, and therefore and absent such further order, any such damage award will have to be pursued against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. Accordingly, the Company believes there can be no assurance that SBS will ever be able to fully pay any such damage award resulting from any determination in the Clothier Case or any other judgment or similar amount resulting from any legal determination adverse to SBS. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- SBS Bankruptcy, above.

 

SGRP Hogan Litigation

 

Paradise Hogan was engaged by and provided services to SBS as an independent contractor pursuant to the terms of an "Independent Contractor Master Agreement" with SBS (prepared solely by SBS) acknowledging his engagement as an independent contractor.  On January 6, 2017, Hogan filed suit against SBS and SGRP (and part of the Company), styled Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-10024-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts.  Hogan initially asserted claims on behalf of himself and an alleged nationwide class of similarly situated individuals who provided services to SBS and SGRP as independent contractors.  Hogan alleged that he and other alleged class members were misclassified as independent contractors, and as a result of this purported misclassification, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and the alleged Massachusetts class members under the Massachusetts Wage Act and Minimum Wage Law for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, as well as state law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  In addition, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and the nationwide class for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime and minimum wage provisions.  On March 28, 2017, the Company moved to refer Hogan's claim to arbitration pursuant to his agreement, to dismiss or stay Hogan's case pending arbitration, and to dismiss Hogan's case for failure to state a specific claim upon which relief could be granted.

 

On March 12, 2018, the Court denied both defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, denied the Motion to Compel Arbitration as to SGRP (because as drafted by SBS, the arbitration clause did not reference or protect SGRP), denied the Motion to Stay as to SGRP, and allowed the Motion to Stay as to SBS pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. In May 2018, the Supreme Court decided arbitration clauses that include an express waiver of a worker's right to bring or participate in a class action did not violate the National Labor Relations Act, which resulted in all SBS disputes (but not any SGRP disputes) being sent to arbitration. On April 24, 2018, SGRP filed a notice of appeal with the First Circuit of the District Court's decision that the arbitration clause (as written by SBS) did not protect SGRP. SGRP and Hogan agreed to stay the District Court litigation pending the First Circuit's decision on SGRP's appeal. Briefing on SGRP's appeal closed on August 8, 2018 and the appeal hearing was heard by the First Circuit on September 11, 2018. On January 25, 2019, the First Circuit issued a judgment affirming the District Court's decision that the arbitration clause (as written by SBS) did not protect SGRP and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. As a result, SGRP would have been required to go to trial without SBS.

 

Facing lengthy and costly litigation and significant potential damages in the Hogan Case, on March 27, 2019, SGRP entered into mediation with the plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel in the Hogan Case to try to settle any potential future liability for any possible judgment against SGRP in that case. SBS and its stockholders were no longer involved in that case and so were not involved in that mediation. After extensive discussions, SGRP reached a settlement and entered into a memorandum of settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval and not likely to become final until later in 2019 if and when the settlement is approved by the court. If approved, SGRP will pay a maximum settlement amount of $250,000 (in three installments) one hundred eighty (180) days after the settlement becomes final, and the Company will be released by plaintiff and the settlement class from all other liability under the Hogan Case (the "Hogan Settlement"). The Company has recorded $250,000 liability as a result of the settlement.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

SBS and SGRP Litigation Generally

 

As a result of the SBS Chapter 11 Case (see above), the claims of SBS' creditors must now generally be pursued in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. On March 11, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in the SBS Chapter 11 Case to permit the plaintiffs in the Clothier Case to proceed with the second part of the case to determine damages against SBS in the same California Court that rendered the Clothier Determination. However, the Bankruptcy Court did not modify the automatic stay to permit collection from SBS of any resulting damage award against it absent further Bankruptcy Court order, and therefore and absent such further order, any such damage award will have to be pursued against SBS in the SBS Chapter 11 Case. Accordingly, the Company believes there can be no assurance that SBS will ever be able to fully pay any such damage award resulting from any determination in the Clothier Case or any other judgment or similar amount resulting from any legal determination adverse to SBS. See Note 8 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements - Commitments and Contingencies -- SBS Bankruptcy, above.

 

9.	Segment Information

 

The Company reports net revenues from operating income by reportable segment. Reportable segments are components of the Company for which separate financial information is available that is evaluated on a regular basis by the chief operating decision maker in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance.

 

The Company provides similar merchandising, business technology and marketing services throughout the world, operating within two reportable segments, its Domestic Division and its International Division. The Company uses those divisions to improve its administration and operational and strategic focuses, and it tracks and reports certain financial information separately for each of those divisions. The Company measures the performance of its Domestic and International Divisions and subsidiaries using the same metrics. The primary measurement utilized by management is operating profits, historically the key indicator of long-term growth and profitability, as the Company is focused on reinvesting the operating profits of each of its international subsidiaries back into its local markets in an effort to improve market share and continued expansion efforts.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

The accounting policies of each of the reportable segments are the same as those described in the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. Management evaluates performance as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

Note: There were no inter-company sales for the three months ended March 31, 2019 or 2018.

 

 

 

 

 

Geographic Data (in thousands)

 

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

10.  Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

The Company reviews new accounting pronouncements as they are issued or proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”).

 

Recently Implemented Pronouncements

 

On January 1, 2019, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 842, Leases.  The new standard is intended to provide enhanced transparency and comparability by requiring lessees to record right of use assets and corresponding lease liabilities on the balance sheet. The new guidance requires the Company to continue to classify leases as either operating or financing, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement. The Company is also required to disclose qualitative and quantitative information about leasing arrangements to enable financial statement users to assess the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The Company adopted ASC 842 using a modified retrospective method that did not require the prior period information to be restated.  ASC 842 also provides a number of optional provisions, known as practical expedients, which companies may elect to adopt to facilitate implementation.  The Company elected a package of practical expedients which, among other items, precludes the Company from needing to reassess 1) whether any expired or existing contracts are or contain leases, 2) the lease classification of any expired or existing leases, and 3) initial direct costs for any existing leases.  In addition, SPAR Group elected an accounting policy to exclude from the consolidated balance sheets the right-of-use ("ROU") assets and lease liabilities related to short-term leases, which are those leases with an initial lease term of twelve months or less that do not include an option to purchase the underlying asset that SPAR Group is reasonably certain to exercise.

 

Due to the implementation of selected practical expedients, there was no cumulative effect adjustment to beginning retained earnings. See Note 11 –Leases for additional disclosures.

 

On January 1, 2019, the Company also adopted the following Accounting Standards Updates (“ASUs”) which had no material impact on its unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements or disclosures:

 

	●	ASU 2018-07, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-based payment accounting
	●	ASU 2018-09, Codification Improvement
	●	ASU 2018-16, Derivatives and Hedging—Inclusion of the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) Overnight Index Swap (OIS) Rate as a Benchmark Interest Rate for Hedge Accounting Purposes

 

During 2018, the Company adopted the following ASU:

 

●

ASU No. 2014-09 (Topic 606), Revenue from Contracts with Customers - The adoption of ASC 606 did not have a material impact on the Company’s existing or new contracts as of January 1, 2018; therefore, no cumulative adjustment to beginning retained earnings was required as a result of adoption.  The Company adopted using the modified retrospective transition method.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

11.

Leases

 

The Company is a lessee under certain operating leases for office space and equipment. Prior to adopting ASC 842, SPAR followed the lease accounting guidance as issued in ASC 840. Under ASC 840, SPAR classified its leases as operating or capital leases based on evaluation of certain criteria of the lease agreement. For leases that contained rent escalations or rent holidays, ASC 840 requires that total rent expense during the lease term be recorded on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease and record the difference between the rents paid and the straight-line rent expense as deferred rent on the balance sheet. Any tenant improvement allowances received from the lessor would also be recorded as a reduction to rent expense over the term of the lease.

 

ASC 842 requires lessees to recognize leases on the balance sheet as a lease liability with a corresponding ROU, subject to certain permitted accounting policy elections.

 

Under ASC 842, SPAR determines, at the inception of the contract, whether the contract is or contains a lease based on whether the contract provides SPAR the right to control the use of a physically distinct asset or substantially all of the capacity of an asset.

 

Many of SPAR's equipment leases are short-term or cancellable with notice. SPAR’s office space leases have remaining lease terms between one and approximately eleven years, many of which include one or more options to extend the term for periods thereafter. Certain leases contain options to terminate the lease early, which may include a penalty for exercising the option. Many of the termination options require notice within a specified period, after which the option is no longer available to SPAR if not exercised. The extension options and termination options may be exercised at SPAR’s sole discretion. SPAR does not consider in the measurement of ROU assets and lease liabilities an option to extend or terminate a lease if SPAR is not reasonably certain to exercise the option. As of March 31, 2019, SPAR has not included any options to extend or terminate in its measurement of ROU assets or lease liabilities.

 

The reported results for Q1 2019 reflect the application of ASC 842 guidance, whereas comparative periods and their respective disclosures prior to the adoption of ASC 842 are presented using the legacy guidance of ASC 840. As a result of adopting the new standard, SPAR recognized ROU assets and liability of $5.7 million. There was no adjustment to deferred taxes as a result of SPAR’s adoption of ASC 842. The adoption of ASC 842 did not have a material impact on SPAR’s results of operations or cash flows, nor did it have an impact on any of SPAR's existing debt covenants.

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

Certain of SPAR’s leases include covenants that oblige SPAR, at its sole expense, to repair and maintain the leased asset periodically during the lease term. SPAR is not a party to any leases that contain residual value guarantees nor is SPAR a party to any leases that provide an option to purchase the underlying asset.

 

Many of SPAR's office space leases include fixed and variable payments. Variable payments relate to real estate taxes, insurance, operating expenses, and common area maintenance, which are usually billed at actual amounts incurred proportionate to SPAR's rented square feet of the building. Variable payments that do not depend on an index or rate are expensed by SPAR as they are incurred and are not included in the measurement of the lease liability.

 

Some of SPAR's leases contain both lease and non-lease components. Fixed and variable payments are allocated to each component relative to observable or estimated standalone prices. SPAR measures its variable lease costs as the portion of variable payments that are allocated to lease components.

 

SPAR measures its lease liability for each leased asset as the present value of lease payments, as defined in ASC 842, allocated to the lease component, discounted using an incremental borrowing rate specific to the underlying asset. SPAR's ROU assets are equal to the lease liability, SPAR estimates its incremental borrowing rate based on the interest rate SPAR would incur to borrow an amount equal to the lease payments on a collateralized basis over a similar term in a similar economic environment.

 

The components of SPAR's lease expenses for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019, which are included in the condensed consolidated income statement, are as follows (in thousands):

 

 

Supplemental cash flow information related to SPAR’s leases for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019 is as follows (in thousands):

 

 

(a)

Amounts for the three months ended March 31, 2019 include the transition adjustment for the adoption of ASU 2016-02 discussed in Note 10.

 

The following table presents supplemental balance sheet information related to SPAR's operating leases as of March 31, 2019 (in thousands):

 

 

 

SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited) (continued)

 

At March 31, 2019, SPAR had the following maturities of lease liabilities related to office space and equipment, all of which are under non-cancellable operating leases (in thousands):

 

 

As previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2018 and under the previous lease accounting standard, ASC 840, Leases, the following table summarizes the future minimum lease payments due under operating leases as of December 31, 2018 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---