XML 24 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies (a) Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013. On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The Plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court considered class certification motions on August 18, 2016, and on September 30, 2016, denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for class certification. In December 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Company filed a Motion to Sever the Claims made by each of the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2017 following the denial of class certification by the District Court which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Reconsideration at the District Court with respect to the denial of class certification on April 12, 2017 based on a change in the law. That Motion was denied on June 30, 2017. The Court also granted the Company's Motion to Sever the claims on June 30, 2017, dissolving the potential class and requiring the Plaintiffs to file individual cases in their home states if they wish to proceed. The Company is unable to determine whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims and the costs of defense of these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. (b) David Buehring, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., Scott L. Thompson, and Barry A. Hytinen, filed March 24, 2017. On March 24, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International, Inc., and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased Tempur Sealy common stock between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its then existing and future financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company does not believe the claims have merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The case is in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of the case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. (c) Myla Gardner v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 10, 2017; Paul Onesti v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 21, 2017; and Joseph L. Doherty v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 20, 2017. During July, three putative shareholder derivative suits were filed against the Company, each member of its Board of Directors and two of its officers. Each complaint alleges that the Board of Directors and officers caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, which was a violation of the fiduciary duties they owed to the Company. The Company does not believe any of the suits have merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in each case. These cases are in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of each case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. The Plaintiffs in two of the cases have agreed to Orders staying their respective actions until forty-five days after a decision is rendered on the Motion to Dismiss in the Buehring action noted above. (d) Mattress Firm, Inc. v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC and Sealy Mattress Company, filed March 30, 2017. On March 30, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur-Pedic and Sealy Mattress (two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company) in the District Court of Harris County, Texas by Mattress Firm. The complaint alleges breach of contract, tortious interference and seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of its agreements with the Company. On April 7, 2017, the Company's subsidiaries named above filed suit against Mattress Firm, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division seeking injunctive relief and damages for trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act, and breach of contract and other state law violations. The complaint alleges that Mattress Firm violated the parties' transition agreements dated January 30, 2017, and consequently, federal and state law, by its use of the Company’s trademarks after April 3, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the complaint was amended to add a claim by Sealy Mattress for nonpayment by Mattress Firm for products sold and delivered. On May 23, 2017, the complaint was further amended to add allegations that Mattress Firm continued to use the Company’s trade names and trademarks on its website and in advertising in an inappropriate manner. On July 11, 2017, the Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Mattress Firm from using the Company’s names and marks in such manner. The Company does not believe the claims asserted by Mattress Firm have merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The cases are in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome remains unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. (e) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such other pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration