SPAR GROUP INC

As previously disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by SPAR Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("SGRP"), and its subsidiaries (together with SGRP, collectively, the "Company" or the "SPAR Group") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on May 14, 2020, the filing of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2020 (this "Quarterly Report"), was delayed due to circumstances related to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).  Due to the outbreak of, and local, state, and federal governmental responses to, and related circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Company’s internal team, accountants (and other advisors whose input is required before filing the Quarterly Report) have all needed to conduct this work remotely, which has, in turn, caused a delay in the preparation and filing of the Quarterly Report and prevented the Company from filing the Quarterly Report by its May 15, 2020 due date. The Company relied on the SEC’s Orders under Section 36 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, dated March 4, 2020 and March 25, 2020 (Release Nos. 34-88318 and 34-88465), to delay the filing of this Quarterly Report for up to 45 days beyond the original May 15, 2020, due date.

In the USA, many of our clients have been affected by business closure and stay at home orders, which has hampered our ability to perform in-store services since March 2020. As of the date of this filing, many of our Company subsidiaries globally have been impacted by temporary retail closures or reduced in-store hours, although most of our customer’s locations remain open to provide essential products. New store openings and remodels with the Company's assistance are particularly susceptible to such external factors and are being delayed by many of the Company's clients due to the effects of the Novel Coronavirus. The Company has initiated mitigation efforts and is monitoring the situation on a country-by-country basis.  The Company has also implemented several cost savings measures which include a reduction in the use of contracted workers, furloughing employees, reducing hours and a reduction in other corporate and non-critical expenses.

 Due in part to the uncertainty stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic as described above the Company experienced a decrease in market capitalization near the end of the first quarter that has continued into the subsequent period. As a result of this condition, the Company reviewed for any triggering event and the need to perform quantitative interim impairment testing over the Company’s goodwill assets as of March 31, 2020. The Company concluded that a triggering event did not occur based on qualitative factors assessed as part of the annual impairment test previously performed, such as actual results to date in comparison to previous forecasts and assumptions based on current projections, including projected revenue, projected operational profit, terminal growth rates, and the cost of capital, and accordingly did not record any asset impairment charges on its goodwill. In performing its assessment, the Company believes it has made reasonable accounting estimates based on the facts and circumstances that were available as of the reporting date considering the developing situation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. If actual results are not consistent with the assumptions and judgments used, there may be exposure to future impairment losses that could be material to the Company’s results of operations.

On March 6, 2020, Robert G. Brown on behalf of SBS sent an email communication to Arthur B. Drogue, to which he copied Arthur H. Baer, demanding payment of $1,707,374 to SBS from SMF SGRP pursuant to (among other things) the SBS Settlement Agreement (the "March 2020 Claim").  The Company has reviewed the March 2020 Claim in detail (although Brown has provided no backup or proof) and the Company strongly disagrees that any such amount is owed.  The Company believes that the robust and comprehensive mutual releases and other provisions in the SBS Settlement Agreement provide valuable relief from such claims and potential future claims and litigation by SBS respecting the Company's past involvement with SBS, including the March 2020 Claim.  However, Robert G. Brown, president, director and indirect owner of SBS, since and notwithstanding the Court's approval of the SBS Settlement Agreement, has continued to make unproven and undocumented claims that amounts that were fully released pursuant to the SBS Settlement Agreement and approved by the bankruptcy court are nevertheless due to SBS from the Company, and the Company strongly disagrees.  The Company is prepared to take action in Nevada Bankruptcy Court by reopening the SBS bankruptcy case and petitioning official settlement of this matter.  Since all such claims have been completely released by SBS (with Mr. Robert G. Brown's approval), the Company owes nothing and has not accrued anything respecting Mr. Robert G. Brown's renewed claims.  Mr. Robert G. Brown is significant stockholder of SGRP, and member of a 13D control group, SGRP's former Chairman and director of SGRP, and became a director again on April 24, 2020, pursuant to the written consents of the Brown Group and Mr. Bartels.

Maceo Rodgers was engaged by and provided services to SBS pursuant to the terms of his "Master Agreements" with SBS acknowledging his engagement as an independent contractor.  On February 21, 2014, Rodgers filed suit against SBS, Robert G. Brown and William H. Bartels, styled Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-00055, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston Division).  Plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of himself and an alleged class of similarly situated individuals who provided services to SBS as independent contractors at any time on or after July 15, 2012, claiming they all were misclassified by SBS independent contractors and that, as a result of this misclassification, the Defendants improperly underpaid them in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime and minimum wage provisions.  Although the Court conditionally certified the class on December 8, 2015, 61 individuals joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs, and all but 11 of them have potentially disqualifying arbitration provisions, residences outside the class's geographic area, or late opt-in filings, and were challenged by the Defendants in various motions, including a motion to decertify the class.  The Court, however, did not rule on these motions and instead stayed the case on September 19, 2017 to allow the parties to mediate.  On October 24, 2017, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to extend the stay order until January 31, 2018.