Note 18:          Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

On March 6, 2015, a complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California by Jason Feola, individually and as a representative of a putative class consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 15, 2012 and February 11, 2015, against Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. and certain current and former officers of the Company. Mr. Feola, pursuant to terms of his retainer agreement with The Rosen Law Firm, certified that he purchased 240 shares of the Company’s common stock for $984 in total consideration. On May 7, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants were served the complaint. In July 2015, the Company and the individual defendants received an amended complaint. The complaint alleges that misstatements and omissions occurred in press releases and filings by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that these misstatements or omissions constitute violations of Section 20 (a) and Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In October 2015, the court held a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered an order granting the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court’s order provided that the dismissal was without prejudice and that the plaintiffs could file an amended complaint within 21 days of the issuance of the order. On December 15, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants were served with a second amended complaint. In May 2016, the court held a hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 21, 2016 the court entered a final judgement to dismiss the class action complaint with prejudice.

On November 6, 2015, a complaint was filed in the Minnesota District Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, by David Gray and Michael Boller, purporting to bring suit derivatively on behalf of the Company against twelve current and former officers and directors of the Company. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, and that the defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result thereof. The complaint sought damages, disgorgement, an award of attorneys’ fees and other expenses, and an order compelling changes to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures. The Company and the other defendants vigorously denied plaintiffs’ allegations and have not admitted any liability or wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The court made no findings or determinations with respect to the merit of plaintiffs’ claims, and no payment is being made by the Company or the other defendants. The parties have reached a settlement that fully resolves plaintiffs’ claims and provides for the release of all claims asserted in the litigation. On August 2, 2017, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 29, 2017, the court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. As a condition of the settlement, the Company has agreed to provide certain training to employees in the Company’s accounting department within one year of the settlement. The court also granted an application by plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees, to be paid by the Company’s insurance carrier. Other than this award of attorneys’ fees, no payment or other consideration was paid by the Company nor its officers or directors in connection with the settlement.

On December 29, 2016, ARCA served a Minnesota state court complaint for breach of contract on Skybridge Americas, Inc. (“SA”), ARCA’s primary call center vendor throughout 2015 and most of 2016. ARCA seeks damages in the millions of dollars as a result of alleged overcharging by SA and lost client contracts. On January 25, 2017, SA served a counterclaim for unpaid invoices in the amount of approximately $460,000 plus interest and attorneys’ fees. On March 29, 2017, the Hennepin County district court dismissed ARCA’s breach of contract claim based on SA’s overuse of its Canadian call center but permitted ARCA’s remaining claims to proceed. On October 24, 2017, ARCA filed a motion for partial summary judgment; SA cross-motioned on November 6, 2017. On January 8, 2018, judgment was entered in SA’s favor, which was amended as of February 28, 2018 for a total amount of $613,566.32 including interest and attorneys’ fees. On March 2, 2018, ARCA appealed the judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The appeal is in progress.

On November 15, 2016, ARCA served an arbitration demand on Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., dba GE Appliances (“GEA”), alleging breach of contract and interference with prospective business advantage. ARCA seeks over $2 million in damages. On April 18, 2017, GEA served a counterclaim for approximately $337,000 in alleged obligations under the parties’ recycling agreement. Simultaneously with serving its counterclaim in the arbitration, which is venued in Chicago, GEA filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky seeking damages of approximately $530,000 plus interest and attorneys’ fees allegedly owed under a previous agreement between the parties. On December 12, 2017, the court stayed GEA’s complaint in favor of the arbitration. Under the terms of ARCA’s transaction with Recleim LLC, Recleim LLC is obligated to pay GEA on ARCA’s behalf the amounts claimed by GEA in the arbitration and in the lawsuit pending in Kentucky. Those amounts have been paid into escrow pending the outcome of the arbitration. The parties have selected an arbitrator and the arbitration was deemed to have commenced as of May 29, 2018.

AMTIM Capital, Inc. (“AMTIM”) acts as our representative to market our recycling services in Canada under an arrangement that pays AMTIM for revenues generated by recycling services in Canada as set forth in the agreement between the parties. A dispute has arisen between AMTIM and us with respect to the calculation of amounts due to AMTIM pursuant to the agreement. In a lawsuit filed in the province of Ontario, AMTIM claims a discrepancy in the calculation of fees due to AMTIM by us of approximately $2.0 million. Although the outcome of this claim is uncertain, we believe that no further amounts are due under the terms of the agreement and that we will continue to defend our position relative to this lawsuit.

We are party from time to time to ordinary course disputes that we do not believe to be material or have merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these ordinary course disputes.