Item 1. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company’s hotel management companies in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which class action affects two hotels owned by subsidiaries of the Company. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of our manager’s previous written policy requiring its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. The opt-out period has been extended until such time that discovery has concluded. In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the class de-certified. After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon. On February 13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit additional briefing related to on-site breaks. A tentative settlement in the amount of $850,000 was reached on February 14, 2025. Final court approval was obtained on September 12, 2025. Braemar’s portion of the settlement is 11.7%. The case is now in the settlement administration phase. Settlement distributions were scheduled to begin on July 22, 2026, and the Court has set a compliance hearing for November 18, 2026. As of June 30, 2026, the settlement liability amount has been accrued.
On June 8, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against various Hilton entities on behalf of a class of all hourly employees at all Hilton-branded managed properties in California, including Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines. The complaint includes claims for unpaid wages, meal and rest break violations, and unreimbursed business expenses, along with various derivative claims including wage statement, final pay, and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims. On November 30, 2023, Hilton mediated this litigation, but it did not result in a settlement. At the end of the mediation, the mediator submitted a mediator’s proposal for approximately $3.5 million, which the parties have since agreed to. The allocation to Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines is approximately $401,000, which was accrued as of June 30, 2026. The Court granted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on October 27, 2025. A hearing on the motion for final approval occurred on April 20, 2026, and the Court entered a final judgment.
On August 4, 2020, a lawsuit, Benjamin Zermeno v. Beverly Hills Marriott , was filed in Alameda County Superior Court as a PAGA representative action alleging various wage and hour violations of all Remington Hospitality managed California properties. The plaintiff’s individual claims were compelled to arbitration. On August 18, 2022, another lawsuit, Cristina Catalano v. Beverly Hills Marriott and Mr. C , was filed as a PAGA representative action alleging various wage and hour violations of all Remington Hospitality managed California properties. The co-defendant separately settled and the individual arbitration has also settled. A private mediation was held on December 27, 2024 to globally resolve the three outstanding matters. The Court approved the settlement of all matters on January 16, 2026. The aggregate settlement is $2.5 million. Braemar’s portion of the settlement is approximately $679,000. As of June 30, 2026, the settlement liability was paid in full.
On February 6, 2024, we received a Request for Information Under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act dated January 11, 2024, from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, relating to The Ritz-Carlton St. Thomas. We complied with the Request for Information and provided the requested information on March 12, 2024. Then, on April 16, 2025, we received a subsequent communication from the EPA alleging certain failures to comply with various record keeping and reporting requirements. The EPA also indicated that they had concerns regarding the operation of the hotel’s generators and the lack of certain certifications that should be held by hotel employees. We met with the EPA in May 2025 to discuss and respond to the allegations in the EPA’s April 16, 2025 communication. Since this meeting, we have been working with the hotel management team to ensure full compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements at the hotel, including ensuring all appropriate hotel employees have all applicable certifications, engaging third-party environmental consultants, working with outside counsel, preparing standard operating procedures for the hotel, and reviewing options relating to the operation of the hotel’s generators. This matter has been resolved for approximately $350,000, which has been accrued as of June 30, 2026, with no admission with respect to the factual allegations or alleged violations.
On June 12, 2026, the Company announced its intention to terminate the Advisory Agreement with Ashford Inc. and transition to a self-managed REIT. In connection with the pending asset sale transactions and the planned termination of the Advisory Agreement, certain shareholders have publicly expressed opposition to aspects of the asset sale transactions and the termination of the Advisory Agreement, and have indicated an intention to pursue legal remedies. There can be no assurance that litigation will not be commenced or, if commenced, that it will be resolved quickly or in the Company’s favor. If a court were to issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or other form of equitable relief, the closing of one or more pending hotel sale transactions could be prevented or delayed, which could in turn prevent or delay the termination of the
58
Advisory Agreement. In such event, the anticipated reduction in general and administrative costs of more than $25 million annually would not be realized, and the other expected benefits of self-management would be delayed or not achieved.
We are also engaged in other legal proceedings that have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. To the extent the claims giving rise to these legal proceedings are not covered by insurance, they relate to the following general types of claims: employment matters, tax matters and matters relating to compliance with applicable law (for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state laws). The likelihood of loss from these legal proceedings is based on the definitions within contingency accounting literature. We recognize a loss when we believe the loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. Based on the information available to us relating to these legal proceedings and/or our experience in similar legal proceedings, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flow.
Our assessment may change depending upon the development of any current or future legal proceedings, and the final results of such legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. If we ultimately do not prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses exceed our current estimates of the range of potential losses, our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows could be materially adversely affected in future periods.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.