COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters From time to time, the Company may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incidental to its business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on its business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of judgment, defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. As of June 30, 2024, the Company has the following outstanding legal claims that may have a material impact. Litigation Relating to LBF Acquisition. Thomas DeRosa, a shareholder of LBF Travel Management Corp. (f/k/a LBF Travel, Inc.), the entity that sold LBF Travel Holdings, LLC to Mondee, sued LBF Travel Management Corp. and its CEO to recover a portion of the proceeds of the sale of LBF Travel Holdings, LLC to Mondee. Mondee was later added as a party to this litigation via a third-party complaint that alleges, among other things, that Mondee aided and abetted the directors and officers of LBF Travel Management Corp. in breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The Federal Court recently dismissed these specific claims against Mondee, and limited other claims in the case, but has not yet set a trial date. There is a separate state court action that has been stayed. While the Company believes that they will be successful based on their position, it is nevertheless reasonably possible that the Company could be required to pay any assessed amounts in order to contest or litigate the assessment and an estimate for a reasonably possible range of loss of any such payments cannot be made. Litigation Relating to Restrictive Legends. On December 8, 2023, plaintiff Raja Venkatesh (“Venkatesh”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Prasad Gundumogula (“Gundumogula” and, together with the Company, the “Mondee Defendants”), and the Company’s transfer agent, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“CST”). The complaint, which is captioned Raja Venkatesh v. Mondee Holdings, Inc., Prasad Gundumogula, and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, Case No.: 1:23-cv-10734-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Venkatesh Action”), asserts ten causes of action: (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Mondee Defendants; (2) violation of 8 Del. C. § 158 against Mondee and CST; (3) violation of 8 Del. C. §§ 8-401 and 8-407 against Mondee and CST; (4) breach of fiduciary duty against the Mondee Defendants; (5) negligence against Mondee and CST; (6) conversion against Mondee and CST; (7) civil conspiracy against all Defendants; (8) breach of contract against Mondee; (9) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Mondee; and (10) injunction against the Company and CST. The claims asserted in the Venkatesh Action all relate to Plaintiff’s allegations that the Company improperly placed and maintained certain restrictive legends on his shares of common stock in the Company purportedly in violation of the terms of a Registration Rights Agreement, to which Plaintiff and the Company are parties. The relief sought in the complaint includes a permanent injunction requiring the removal of the restrictive legends, compensatory damages for losses allegedly sustained by Venkatesh as a result of defendants’ conduct, punitive damages, and costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Venkatesh Action. On February 12, 2024, the Mondee Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In addition, Gundumogula moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Also on February 12, 2024, CST filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Mondee Defendants’ and CST’s motions to dismiss on April 11, 2024. In his opposition, Plaintiff withdrew his claims for violation of 6 Del. C. § 8-401 (Count III) and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IX) as against all defendants, his claim for civil conspiracy as against Gundumogula (Count VII), and breach of fiduciary duty as against Mondee (Count IV). Additionally, Plaintiff clarified that his claim for injunction (Count X) is not a cause of action, but rather a request for injunctive relief as a remedy if successful on his other claims. The pretrial conference, which was originally scheduled for February 9, 2024, has been adjourned pending resolution of the pending motions to dismiss. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted in the Venkatesh Action. At present, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, associated with these claims. On October 13, 2021, Mondee received a summons from Global Collect Services B.V. to appear in the District Court of Amsterdam with respect to a claim of $0.5 million for past dues and outstanding invoices, fees, plus interest and costs of collection. The Company is in current discussions to settle this lawsuit and at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss. Letters of Credit The Company had $7.7 million and $7.9 million secured letters of credit outstanding as of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively. These primarily relate to securing the payment for the potential purchase of airline tickets in the ordinary course of business and are collateralized by term deposits, for which the contractual obligation is less than a year. Commercial Commitments The Company has commercial commitments arising in the normal course of business of the industry in which it operates. Under the terms of such contracts, the Company receives cash in advance for production goals over a period of several years. In the event of under-performance or termination of the applicable contract, the Company may be obligated to repay amounts still to be earned. As of June 30, 2024, the Company had under-performed the required goals of one such contract, where the unearned balance was $8.3 million and is recognized as part of the current and non-current Deferred Revenue balance on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company and counter-party both intend to continue the terms of the contracts.

From time to time, the Company may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incidental to its business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on its business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of judgment, defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. As of June 30, 2024, the Company has the following outstanding legal claims that may have a material impact.

Litigation Relating to LBF Acquisition. Thomas DeRosa, a shareholder of LBF Travel Management Corp. (f/k/a LBF Travel, Inc.), the entity that sold LBF Travel Holdings, LLC to Mondee, sued LBF Travel Management Corp. and its CEO to recover a portion of the proceeds of the sale of LBF Travel Holdings, LLC to Mondee. Mondee was later added as a party to this litigation via a third-party complaint that alleges, among other things, that Mondee aided and abetted the directors and officers of LBF Travel Management Corp. in breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The Federal Court recently dismissed these specific claims against Mondee, and limited other claims in the case, but has not yet set a trial date. There is a separate state court action that has been stayed. While the Company believes that they will be successful based on their position, it is nevertheless reasonably possible that the Company could be required to pay any assessed amounts in order to contest or litigate the assessment and an estimate for a reasonably possible range of loss of any such payments cannot be made.

Defendants”), and the Company’s transfer agent, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“CST”). The complaint, which is captioned Raja Venkatesh v. Mondee Holdings, Inc., Prasad Gundumogula, and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, Case No.: 1:23-cv-10734-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Venkatesh Action”), asserts ten causes of action: (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Mondee Defendants; (2) violation of 8 Del. C. § 158 against Mondee and CST; (3) violation of 8 Del. C. §§ 8-401 and 8-407 against Mondee and CST; (4) breach of fiduciary duty against the Mondee Defendants; (5) negligence against Mondee and CST; (6) conversion against Mondee and CST; (7) civil conspiracy against all Defendants; (8) breach of contract against Mondee; (9) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Mondee; and (10) injunction against the Company and CST. The claims asserted in the Venkatesh Action all relate to Plaintiff’s allegations that the Company improperly placed and maintained certain restrictive legends on his shares of common stock in the Company purportedly in violation of the terms of a Registration Rights Agreement, to which Plaintiff and the Company are parties. The relief sought in the complaint includes a permanent injunction requiring the removal of the restrictive legends, compensatory damages for losses allegedly sustained by Venkatesh as a result of defendants’ conduct, punitive damages, and costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Venkatesh Action. On February 12, 2024, the Mondee Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In addition, Gundumogula moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Also on February 12, 2024, CST filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Mondee Defendants’ and CST’s motions to dismiss on April 11, 2024. In his opposition, Plaintiff withdrew his claims for violation of 6 Del. C. § 8-401 (Count III) and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IX) as against all defendants, his claim for civil conspiracy as against Gundumogula (Count VII), and breach of fiduciary duty as against Mondee (Count IV). Additionally, Plaintiff clarified that his claim for injunction (Count X) is not a cause of action, but rather a request for injunctive relief as a remedy if successful on his other claims. The pretrial conference, which was originally scheduled for February 9, 2024, has been adjourned pending resolution of the pending motions to dismiss. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted in the Venkatesh Action. At present, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, associated with these claims.

The Company has commercial commitments arising in the normal course of business of the industry in which it operates. Under the terms of such contracts, the Company receives cash in advance for production goals over a period of several years. In the event of under-performance or termination of the applicable contract, the Company may be obligated to repay amounts still to be earned. As of June 30, 2024, the Company had under-performed the required goals of one such contract, where the unearned balance was $8.3 million and is recognized as part of the current and non-current Deferred Revenue balance on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company and counter-party both intend to continue the terms of the contracts.