7.    COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

In March 2020, the Company settled an administrative enforcement action filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) relating to Company’s sale of VieVu, LLC to Axon Enterprise Inc. (“Axon”) wherein the FTC alleged that the operative agreements contained non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18. The FTC’s administrative complaint sought only injunctive relief against the Company to enjoin the enforcement of these provisions, now and in the future, and did not seek monetary damages against the Company. In January 2020, the Company and Axon had rescinded these provisions. Pursuant to a consent agreement and proposed consent order entered into by the FTC and the Company, on June 11, 2020, the FTC issued a Decision and Order accepting the Consent Agreement (the “Order”). Under the Order, the Company agreed to not modify and reinstate the rescinded provisions and to not enter into any new similar provisions with Axon, absent prior approval from the FTC. In addition, as part of the Company’s compliance program, the Order imposes an obligation to distribute to, and train the directors and officers on, the requirements of the consent order and to report annually for five years to the FTC ensuring compliance with the consent order. On July 10, 2020, the Company filed its Interim Verified Compliance Report and, thereafter, on June 11, 2021 and June 10, 2022, filed its Annual Compliance Reports, each as required by the Order.

In June 2020, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Western District of Washington (Seattle, WA), pertaining to a False Claims Act investigation, 31 U.S.C, sections 3729-3733 (“FCA”), concerning allegations that soft body armor vest accessory panels sold by the Company are falsely labeled as compliant with the National Institute of Justice performance standards. In September 2020, the Company made its First Production of Documents which contained only documents and data that had been deemed to be of a “priority” nature pursuant to an agreement reached between the Company’s counsel and the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the matter. In July 2021, the Company received a request for additional information relating to the subject matter of the investigation, with which the Company complied. In October 2021, November 2021 and December 2021, the Company produced additional documents responsive to the correspondence containing requests for specific documents and supplemental information. At this preliminary stage of the investigation, the Company does not have enough information to make an evaluation of the merits, exposure or potential risks regarding this matter.

In September 2021, Safariland, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, received a jury verdict awarding $7,500 to a plaintiff relating to a personal injury case wherein the plaintiff alleged various product liability claims against Safariland, LLC. The plaintiff in the proceeding, Mr. David Hakim, instituted the proceeding on July 24, 2015, through the filing of a complaint with the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. In the proceeding, the plaintiff, a SWAT officer with the DuPage County Sheriff’s Office (“DCSO”), alleged that he suffered injuries during a training exercise conducted by DCSO in which a Defense Technology Shotgun Breaching TKO round was deployed and passed through a door and lower-floor ceiling causing a fragment to strike plaintiff’s back resulting in injury. Prior to the jury rendering its verdict, the court deferred ruling on Safariland, LLC’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”). On November 8, 2021, Safariland, LLC filed its post-trial motions, including a supplemental JMOL, motion for new trial and remittitur. On April 18, 2022, the court denied Safariland, LLC’s JMOL, motion for new trial and remittitur and, accordingly, entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff, David Hakim, as to the Third Claim. In response, Safariland, LLC timely filed its notice of appeal on May 16, 2022 and, on July 7, 2022, Safariland timely filed its opening brief.  Plaintiff has 30 days to file a response brief, and Safariland will have 21 days to file a reply, provided that it is no later than seven days before oral argument is scheduled. While any litigation contains an element of uncertainty, the Company believes it is reasonably possible, not probable, that the Company could incur losses related to this case, however, any losses would be indemnified by our insurance carrier under applicable policies.

The Company is also involved in various legal disputes and other legal proceedings and claims that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company vigorously defends itself against all lawsuits and evaluates the amount of reasonably possible losses that the Company could incur as a result of these matters. While any litigation contains an element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the reasonably possible losses that the Company could incur in excess of insurance coverage would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

Insurance

The Company has various insurance policies, including product liability insurance, covering risks and in amounts it considers adequate. There can be no assurance that the insurance coverage maintained by the Company is sufficient or will be available in adequate amounts or at a reasonable cost.

International

As an international company, we are, from time to time, the subject of investigations relation to the Company’s international operations, including under U.S. export control laws (such as ITAR), the FCPA and other similar U.S. and international laws. To the best of the Company’s knowledge, there are not any potential or pending investigations at this time.

Leases

The Company leases office, warehouse, and distribution space under non-cancelable operating leases. As leases expire, it can be expected that, in the normal course of business, certain leases will be renewed or replaced. Our leases generally contain multi-year renewal options and escalation clauses. Total rent expense of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021 was $1,202 and $1,175, respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021 was $2,402 and $2,325, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments required under non-cancelable operating leases that have initial or remaining non-cancelable lease terms in excess of one year for the remaining six months of 2022, the next four years and thereafter is as follows:

​

​

There were no material future minimum sublease payments to be received under non-cancelable subleases as of June 30, 2022. There was no material sublease income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021.