Note 8 – Commitments and Contingencies

Facilities Leases

The Company’s corporate headquarters is located in Carson, California. The Company’s corporate headquarters has a lease term through October 2020. The Company also leases warehouse space in LaSalle, Illinois and in Chesapeake, Virginia. The Company’s Philippines subsidiary leases office space under an agreement through April 2020.

Facility rent expense for fiscal year ended 2018 and 2017 was $1,752, and $1,734, respectively. The Company’s facility rent expense did not include any amounts charged from a related party during fiscal years 2018 and 2017.

On February 4, 2016, the Company entered into a lease for its distribution center located in Chesapeake, Virginia. The Lease between the Company and Liberty Property Limited Partnership is for approximately 159,294 square feet. The initial three-year term of the Lease commenced on July 1, 2016 and is set to expire in June of 2019. The Company is obligated to pay approximately $640 in annual base rent, which shall increase by approximately 2.5% each year. The Company is also obligated to pay certain operating expenses set forth in the Lease. Pursuant to the Lease, the Company has the option to extend the Lease for an additional three-year term, with certain increases in base rent. The monthly base rent commitment was $56 as of December 29, 2018.

In January 2010, the Company’s Philippines subsidiary entered into a lease agreement. Under the terms of the lease agreement, effective March 1, 2010, the monthly rent was approximately $25, and became subject to 5% annual escalation beginning on the 3rd year of the lease term. The lease renewed for a sixty month term upon mutual agreement of both parties during 2015.

As described in detail under “Note 3 – Property and Equipment Net”, on April 17, 2013, the Company entered into a sale lease-back agreement with STORE Master Funding III, LLC (“STORE”) whereby we leased back our facility located in LaSalle, Illinois for our continued use as an office, retail and warehouse facility for storage, sale and distribution of automotive parts, accessories and related items for 20 years commencing upon the execution of the lease and terminating on April 30, 2033. The related assets for the sale lease-back land and building is represented by the amount included in leased facility in the summary above. The Company’s initial base annual rent is $853 for the first year (“Base Rent Amount”), after which the rental amount will increase annually on May 1 by the lesser of 1.5% or 1.25 times the change in the Consumer Price Index as published by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, except that in no event will the adjusted annual rental amount fall below the Base Rent Amount. We were not required to pay any security deposit. Under the terms of the lease, we are required to pay all taxes associated with the lease, pay for any required maintenance on the property, maintain certain levels of insurance and indemnify STORE for losses incurred that are related to our use or occupancy of the property. The lease was accounted for as a capital lease and the $376 excess of the net proceeds over the net carrying amount of the property is amortized in interest expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term of 20 years. As of December 29, 2018, the net carrying value of all capital leased assets included in property and equipment was $7,337.

Minimum lease commitments under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 29, 2018 are as follows:

 

Capital lease commitments as of December 29, 2018 were as follows:

 

Legal Matters

Asbestos. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary WAG, are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company’s assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements.

Customs Issues. On April 2, 2018, the Company filed a complaint against the United States of America, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and Chief Frederick Eisler (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the United States Court of International Trade (the “Court”) (Case No. 1:18-cv-00068) seeking (i) relief from a single entry bonding requirement set by the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), an agency of DHS,  at a level equivalent to three times the commercial invoice value of each shipment (the “Bonding Requirement”), (ii) a declaration that the Bonding Requirement is unlawful, (iii) an injunction prohibiting additional delayed entry for all of the Company’s currently-held goods being denied entry into the United States by CBP and all of the Company’s future imports, and (iv) recovery of our attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the action.   The genesis for the action is CBP’s wrongful seizure of aftermarket vehicle grilles and associated parts being imported by the Company (“Repair Grilles”) on the basis that the Repair Grilles allegedly bear counterfeit trademarks of the original automobile manufacturers (i.e., original-equipment manufacturers, or “OEMs”). Generally, these trademarks, as applied against the Company, purport to cover the shape of the grilles themselves, or the OEM’s logo or name.  However, the Repair Grilles are not counterfeit and do not cause a likelihood of confusion amongst purchasers or the relevant consuming public which are prerequisites for seizures under the pertinent provision of the Tariff Act being relied upon by CBP to seize the Repair Grilles.

On May 25, 2018, the Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction and ordered that (i) the Defendants are restrained from enforcing the 3X Bonding Requirement, the Three Percent Bonding Requirement, and any other enhanced bonding requirement on the Company in order to obtain entry of its shipments into the United States, and (ii) CBP shall use its best efforts to process all of the Company’s shipping containers and release all of the Company’s imports not implicated by CBP’s underlying trademark infringement allegations in a timely manner. The Court’s decision was not appealed by DHS and the matter is no longer pending before the Court.  The Court’s May 25, 2018 decision is described herein in summary fashion only. The full text of the decision should be read in its entirety. Copies of the decision are available on the Court’s electronic filing system (located on the Court’s docket at No. 18-00068).

Despite the favorable court order, the Company continued to experience issues with product flow arising from CBP’s inability to process the Company’s shipping containers in an expeditious fashion.   As a result, the Company incurred significant port and carrier fees resulting from the increased period of time the Company’s containers remained at the port.  The fees associated with this unreleased product, as well as the increased legal costs associated with the product seizures and the bonding litigation, aggregated to $5,046 during fiscal 2018. As of December 29, 2018, all product not implicated by the trademark infringement allegations has been released by CBP. 

Ordinary course litigation. The Company is subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of its business. As of the date hereof, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flow of the Company. The Company maintains liability insurance coverage to protect the Company’s assets from losses arising out of or involving activities associated with ongoing and normal business operations.

Related Party Matters

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with the Company’s directors and executive officers. These agreements require the Company to indemnify these individuals to the fullest extent permitted under law against liabilities that may arise by reason of their service to the Company, and to advance expenses incurred as a result of any proceeding against them as to which they could be indemnified.