Commitments and Contingencies |
9 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sep. 30, 2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments
The Company has entered into agreements with suppliers that contain minimum purchase obligations and agreements to purchase capital equipment. Aggregate future minimum payments under these obligations in effect at September 30, 2021 were approximately $1.5 million.
Letters of Credit
The Company has various letters of credit that were issued under the Company’s revolving credit agreement which is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of the Company. The letters of credit are categorized below (in thousands):
Insurance
The Company has insurance coverage for physical partial loss to its assets, employer’s liability, automobile liability, commercial general liability, workers’ compensation and insurance for other specific risks. The Company has also elected in some cases to accept a greater amount of risk through increased deductibles on certain insurance policies. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the workers’ compensation and automobile liability policies require a deductible per occurrence of up to $0.3 million and $0.1 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the workers’ compensation and auto liability policies contained an aggregate stop loss of $5.4 million. The Company establishes liabilities for the unpaid deductible portion of claims incurred based on estimates. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, accrued claims were $1.6 million and $1.9 million, respectively.
The Company also has insurance coverage for directors and officers liability. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the directors and officers liability policy had a deductible per occurrence of $1.0 million and an aggregate deductible of $10.0 million. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the Company did not have any accrued claims for directors and officers liability.
The Company also self-insures its employee health insurance. The Company has coverage on its self-insurance program in the form of a stop loss of $0.2 million per participant and an aggregate stop-loss of $5.8 million for the calendar year ending December 31, 2021. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, accrued claims were $1.2 million and $1.3 million, respectively. These estimates may change in the near term as actual claims continue to develop.
Warranty Guarantees
Pursuant to certain customer contracts in our infrastructure services segment, the Company warrants equipment and labor performed under the contracts for a specified period following substantial completion of the work. Generally, the warranty is for one year or less. No liabilities were accrued as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020 and no expense was recognized during the nine months ended September 30, 2021 or 2020 related to warranty claims. However, if warranty claims occur, the Company could be required to repair or replace warrantied items, which in most cases are covered by warranties extended from the manufacturer of the equipment. In the event the manufacturer of equipment failed to perform on a warranty obligation or denied a warranty claim made by the Company, the Company could be required to pay for the cost of the repair or replacement.
Bonds
In the ordinary course of business, the Company is required to provide bid bonds to certain customers in the infrastructure services segment as part of the bidding process. These bonds provide a guarantee to the customer that the Company, if awarded the project, will perform under the terms of the contract. Bid bonds are typically provided for a percentage of the total contract value. Additionally, the Company may be required to provide performance and payment bonds for contractual commitments related to projects in process. These bonds provide a guarantee to the customer that the Company will perform under the terms of a contract and that the Company will pay subcontractors and vendors. If the Company fails to perform under a contract or to pay subcontractors and vendors, the customer may demand that the surety make payments or provide services under the bond. The Company must reimburse the surety for expenses or outlays it incurs. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, outstanding bid bonds totaled $0.1 million and $1.0 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, outstanding performance and payment bonds totaled $13.5 million and $18.1 million, respectively. The estimated cost to complete projects secured by the performance and payment bonds totaled $0.5 million as of September 30, 2021.
Litigation
The Company is routinely involved in state and local tax audits. During 2015, the State of Ohio assessed taxes on the purchase of equipment the Company believes is exempt under state law. The Company appealed the assessment and a hearing was held in 2017. As a result of the hearing, the Company received a decision from the State of Ohio. The Company is appealing the decision and while it is not able to predict the outcome of the appeal, this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
On June 19, 2018, Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico styled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC, et al. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused power outages in Puerto Rico while performing restoration work on Puerto Rico’s electrical network following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, thereby interrupting commercial activities and causing economic loss. The Company believes these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. However, at this time,
the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Cobra has been served with ten lawsuits from municipalities in Puerto Rico alleging failure to pay construction excise and volume of business taxes. The Government of Puerto Rico’s Central Recovery and Reconstruction Office (“COR3”) has noted the unique nature of work executed by entities such as Cobra in Puerto Rico and that taxes, such as those in these matters, may be eligible for reimbursement by the government. Further, COR3 indicated that it is working to develop a solution that will result in payment of taxes owed to the municipalities without placing an undue burden on entities such as Cobra. The Company continues to work with COR3 to resolve these matters. However, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of these matters or whether they will have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
On March 20, 2019, EJ LeJeune, a former employee of ESPADA Logistics and Security Group, LLC and ESPADA Caribbean LLC (together, “ESPADA”) filed a putative collective and class action complaint in LeJeune v. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics and Security Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. On August 5, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, dismissing Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. as a defendant, adding Cobra Acquisitions LLC (“Cobra”) as a defendant, and adding ESPADA Caribbean LLC and two officers of ESPADA—James Jorrie and Jennifer Gay Jorrie—as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants jointly employed the plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and failed to pay them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico law. The complaint also alleges the following violations of Puerto Rico law: illegal deductions from workers’ wages, failure to timely pay all wages owed, failure to pay a required severance when terminating workers without just cause, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide required meal periods, and failure to pay a statutorily required bonus to eligible workers. Mr. LeJeune seeks to represent a class of workers allegedly employed by one or more defendants and paid a flat amount for each day worked regardless of how many hours were worked. The complaint seeks back wages, including overtime wages owed, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages owed, attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On June 16, 2020, Cobra answered Mr. LeJeune’s amended complaint, denying that it employed Mr. LeJeune and the putative class members and denying that they are entitled to relief from Cobra. All other defendants have also answered the amended complaint. The parties stipulated to conditional certification of a collective action, and on August 14, 2020, the Court ordered that notice be sent to all individuals engaged by ESPADA to provide services to Cobra in Puerto Rico between January 21, 2017 and the present who were paid a day-rate. Notice was sent to putative class members on September 15, 2020, and the opt-in period closed on November 14, 2020. The parties are in discovery. The Company believes these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. However, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
On April 16, 2019, Christopher Williams, a former employee of Higher Power Electrical, LLC, filed a putative class and collective action complaint titled Christopher Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Higher Power Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. On June 24, 2019, the complaint was amended to replace Mr. Williams with Matthew Zeisset as the named plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime wages to a class of workers in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico law. On August 21, 2019, upon request of the parties, the court stayed proceedings in the lawsuit pending completion of individual arbitration proceedings initiated by Mr. Zeisset and opt-in plaintiffs. The arbitrations remain pending. Other claimants have initiated individual arbitration proceedings asserting similar claims. In May 2020, six arbitrations were held in the related matters. The Company believes these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the arbitrations. However, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcomes of these proceedings or whether they will have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma (the “Court”). On September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits under the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation. On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and Mark Layton. Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs brought a consolidated putative federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. common stock between October 19, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive. On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On March 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint for violation of federal securities laws which contains allegations substantially similar to those contained in the plaintiff’s first amended complaint. On March 30, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 26, 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied the motion to dismiss in part. In April 2021 a settlement was reached and motion for preliminary approval was filed, which the Court granted on May 4, 2021. On September 21, 2021, the Court issued a final judgment approving the settlement, which released the defendants from all claims asserted in the litigation, or that could have been asserted arising from the subject matter of the litigation and the purchase or acquisition of Mammoth common stock during the class period in return for a cash payment in the amount of $11.0 million for the benefit of the settlement class. The settlement amount is covered in full under Mammoth’s directors’ and officers’ insurance policy.
In September 2019, four derivative lawsuits were filed, two in the Western District of Oklahoma and two in the District of Delaware (the “Court”), purportedly on behalf of the Company against its officers and directors. In October 2019, the plaintiffs in the two Oklahoma actions voluntarily dismissed their respective cases, with one plaintiff refiling his action in the District of Delaware. On September 13, 2019, the Court consolidated the three actions under the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder Litigation. On January 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of Nominal Defendant, Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., and against Arty Straehla, Mark Layton, Arthur Amron, Paul V. Heerwagen IV, Marc McCarthy, Jim Palm, Matthew Ross, Arthur Smith, Gulfport Energy Corporation, and Wexford Capital LP. On October 5, 2021, the plaintiffs and Nominal Defendant Mammoth entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) in the derivative action, which was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 28, 2021, and is subject to final approval by the Court. The terms of the Stipulation require that, in exchange for the full release, discharge and dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against the defendants in the derivative action, (1) the individual defendants will cause the insurers under Mammoth’s Directors’ and Officers’ (“D&O”) insurance policy (the “D&O insurers”) to pay $1.5 million to Mammoth, which Mammoth will use for general corporate purposes; and (2) Mammoth will adopt certain corporate governance reforms, which will further enhance Mammoth’s current corporate governance policies. Additionally, the Stipulation provides that the individual defendants will cause the D&O insurers to pay, subject to Court approval, a separate payment of $0.5 million to plaintiffs’ counsel for their attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Court has set a hearing date for January 7, 2022 to consider the final approval of the settlement. The final settlement amount is expected to be covered in full under Mammoth’s D&O insurance policy. However, until the Court issues a final order approving the settlement, Mammoth cannot assure you that the derivative action will be settled on the terms set forth herein or at all.
On September 10, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico unsealed an indictment that charged the former president of Cobra Acquisitions LLC with conspiracy, wire fraud, false statements and disaster fraud. Two other individuals were also charged in the indictment. The indictment is focused on the interactions between a former FEMA official and the former president of Cobra. Neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries were charged in the indictment. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the related investigation. Given the uncertainty inherent in the criminal litigation, it is not possible at this time to determine the potential outcome or other potential impacts that the criminal litigation could have on the Company. PREPA has stated in court filings that it may contend the alleged criminal activity affects Cobra’s entitlement to payment under its contracts with PREPA. Subsequent to the indictment, the Company received (i) a preservation request letter from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) related to documents relevant to an ongoing investigation it is conducting and (ii) a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which requests certain documents and answers to specific interrogatories relevant to an ongoing investigation it is conducting. Both the aforementioned SEC and DOJ investigations are in connection with the issues raised in the criminal matter. Following the resignation of Jonathan Yellen from the Company’s board of directors and the matters raised in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on May 14, 2020, the Company received an expanded preservation request from the SEC. The Company is cooperating with both the SEC and DOJ and is not able to predict the outcome of these investigations or if either will have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
On September 12, 2019, AL Global Services, LLC (“Alpha Lobo”) filed a second amended third-party petition against the Company in an action styled Jim Jorrie v. Craig Charles, Julian Calderas, Jr., and AL Global Services, LLC v. Jim Jorrie v. Cobra Acquisitions LLC v. ESPADA Logistics & Security Group, LLC, ESPADA Caribbean LLC, Arty Straehla, Ken Kinsey, Jennifer Jorrie, and Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., in the 57th Judicial District in Bexar County, Texas. The petition alleges that the Company should be held vicariously liable under alter ego, agency and respondeat superior theories for Alpha Lobo’s alleged claims against Cobra and Arty Straehla for aiding and abetting, knowing participation in and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty in connection with Cobra’s execution of an agreement with ESPADA Caribbean, LLC for security services related to Cobra’s work in Puerto Rico. The Company believes these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. However, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, there was a parallel arbitration proceeding that was initiated in which certain
Defendants sought a declaratory judgment regarding Cobra’s rights to terminate the Alpha Lobo contract and enter into a new contract with a third-party. On June 24, 2021, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of Cobra.
As of September 30, 2021, PREPA owed the Company approximately $227.0 million for services performed, excluding $101.2 million of interest charged on these delinquent balances as of September 30, 2021. The Company believes these receivables are collectible. PREPA, however, is currently subject to bankruptcy proceedings, which were filed in July 2017 and are currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. As a result, PREPA’s ability to meet its payment obligations is largely dependent upon funding from FEMA or other sources. On September 30, 2019, Cobra filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico seeking recovery of the amounts owed to Cobra by PREPA, which motion was stayed by the court. On March 25, 2020, Cobra filed an urgent motion to modify the stay order and allow the recovery of approximately $61.7 million in claims related to a tax gross-up provision contained in the emergency master service agreement, as amended, that was entered into with PREPA on October 19, 2017. This emergency motion was denied on June 3, 2020 and the court extended the stay of our motion. On December 9, 2020, the Court again extended the stay of our motion and directed PREPA to file a status motion by June 7, 2021. On April 6, 2021, Cobra filed a motion to lift the stay order. Following this filing, PREPA initiated discussion, which resulted in PREPA and Cobra filing a joint motion to adjourn all deadlines relative to the April 6, 2021 motion until the June 16, 2021 omnibus hearing as a result of PREPA’s understanding that FEMA will release a report in the near future relating to the emergency master service agreement between PREPA and Cobra that was executed on October 19, 2017. The joint motion was granted by the court on April 14, 2021. On May 26, 2021, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum related to the first contract between Cobra and PREPA in which, among other things, FEMA raised two contract compliance issues and, as a result, concluded that approximately $47 million in costs were not authorized costs under the contract. On June 14, 2021, the Court issued an order adjourning Cobra’s motion to lift the stay order to a hearing on August 4, 2021 and directing Cobra and PREPA to meet and confer in good faith concerning (i) the May 26, 2021 Determination Memorandum issued by FEMA and (ii) whether and when a second determination memorandum is expected. The parties were further directed to file an additional status report, which was filed on July 20, 2021. On July 23, 2021, with the aid of Mammoth, PREPA filed an appeal of the entire $47 million that FEMA de-obligated in the May 26, 2021 Determination Memorandum. On August 4, 2021, the Court extended the stay and ordered a joint status report to be filed on January 19, 2022. In the event PREPA (i) does not have or does not obtain the funds necessary to satisfy its obligations to Cobra under the contracts, (ii) obtains the necessary funds but refuses to pay the amounts owed to the Company or (iii) otherwise does not pay amounts owed to the Company for services performed, the receivable may not be collectible.
On December 28, 2019, Gulfport filed a lawsuit against Stingray Pressure Pumping in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. Pursuant to the complaint, Gulfport seeks to terminate the October 1, 2014, Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement for Pressure Pumping Services between Gulfport and Stingray Pressure Pumping (“MSA”). In addition, Gulfport alleges breach of contract and seeks damages for alleged overpayments and audit costs under the MSA and other fees and expenses associated with this lawsuit. On March 26, 2020, Stingray Pressure Pumping filed a counterclaim against Gulfport seeking to recover unpaid fees and expenses due to Stingray Pressure Pumping under the MSA. In September 2020, Muskie filed a lawsuit against Gulfport to recover delinquent payments due under a natural sand proppant supply contract. These matters were automatically stayed as a result of Gulfport’s bankruptcy filing. On November 13, 2020, Gulfport filed petitions for voluntary relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Gulfport emerged from bankruptcy on May 17, 2021. As of November 13, 2020, Gulfport owed the Company approximately $46.9 million, which included interest charges of $3.3 million and $1.8 million in attorneys’ fees. FASB ASC 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, requires companies to reflect its current estimate of all expected credit losses. As a result, the Company recorded reserves on its pre-petition receivables due from Gulfport for products and services, interest and attorneys’ fees of $19.4 million, $1.4 million and $1.8 million, respectively, during the year ended December 31, 2020. On March 22, 2021, Gulfport listed the Stingray Pressure Pumping and Muskie contracts on its master rejection schedule filed with the bankruptcy court. During the first quarter of 2021, the Company recognized unliquidated damages of approximately $46.4 million and recorded reserves on these unliquidated damages as a reduction to revenue of $27.1 million and to bad debt expense of $3.8 million. Also during the first quarter of 2021, the Company recorded additional reserves on its pre-petition products and services and interest receivables of $6.1 million and $0.5 million, respectively. On September 21, 2021, the Company and Gulfport reached a settlement under which all litigation relating to the Stingray Pressure Pumping contract and the Muskie contract will be terminated, Stingray Pressure Pumping will release all claims against Gulfport and its subsidiaries with respect to Gulfport’s bankruptcy proceedings, each of the parties will release all claims they had against the others with respect to the litigation matters discussed above and Muskie will have an allowed general unsecured claim against Gulfport of $3.1 million. The settlement remains subject to the final approval by the bankruptcy court overseeing Gulfport’s bankruptcy. As a result, during the three months ended September 30, 2021, the Company wrote off its remaining receivable related to the Stingray Pressure Pumping claim resulting in bad debt expense
and other expense of $31.0 million and $1.3 million, respectively, and recorded additional bad debt expense related to the Muskie claim totaling $0.2 million. The Company had net accounts receivable due from Gulfport totaling $0.1 million as of September 30, 2021, which is included in “accounts receivable, net” on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. See Note 3.
On January 21, 2020, MasTec Renewables Puerto Rico, LLC (“MasTec”) filed a lawsuit against Mammoth Inc. and Cobra, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Pursuant to its complaint, MasTec asserts claims against the Company and Cobra for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), tortious interference and violations of a Puerto Rico statute. MasTec alleged that it sustained injuries to its business and property in an unspecified amount because it lost the opportunity to perform work in connection with rebuilding the energy infrastructure in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria under a services contract with a maximum value of $500 million due to the Company’s and Cobra’s wrongful interference, payment of bribes, and other inducements to a FEMA official. On April 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 14, 2020, the court dismissed the RICO claims, and on November 18, 2020, dismissed the claims arising under the Puerto Rico statute and the cause of action for tortious interference with MasTec’s contract (but not its business relations), and dismissed Mammoth Inc. from the litigation. On August 2, 2021, in order to avoid the risks of further litigation, and with no admission of wrongdoing whatsoever, the Company reached an agreement to settle this matter. Under the terms of the agreement, Cobra paid $6.5 million to MasTec on August 2, 2021 and the Company guaranteed payment, by Cobra, of $9.25 million on both August 1, 2022 and December 1, 2022. The agreement bears interest at rates between 6% and 12% and includes an acceleration clause that requires Cobra to pay within ten days all unpaid amounts if Cobra collects $100 million or more of specified receivables. These amounts are reflected in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet and in “other income (expense), net” on the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of comprehensive loss.
On May 13, 2021, Foreman Electric Services, Inc. (“Foreman”) filed a petition against Mammoth Inc. and Cobra, in the U.S. District Court of Oklahoma County. Pursuant to its complaint, Foreman asserted claims against the Company and Cobra for violations of the federal RICO act, tortious interference and violations of Puerto Rico statutes. Foreman alleged that it sustained injuries to its business and property in the alleged amount of $250 million due to the Company’s and Cobra’s wrongful interference, payment of bribes and other inducements to a FEMA official. On May 18, 2021, the Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. On July 29, 2021, Foreman voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.
The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, legal matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and there exists the possibility that the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Defined Contribution Plan The Company sponsors a 401(k) defined contribution plan for the benefit of substantially all employees at their date of hire. The plan allows eligible employees to contribute up to 92% of their annual compensation, not to exceed annual limits established by the federal government. The Company makes discretionary matching contributions of up to 3% of an employee’s compensation and may make additional discretionary contributions for eligible employees. For the nine months ended September 30, 2021 and 2020, the Company paid $1.3 million and $1.5 million, respectively, in contributions to the plan.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||