XML 30 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies (a) 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. A Motion to Dismiss the case was filed by the Company on October 5, 2017. On March 26, 2019, the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in its entirety and is no longer subject to appeal. As such, this case is now closed. (b) 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; 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; and 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. During July 2017, three putative shareholder derivative suits were filed against the Company, each member of its Board and two of its officers. Each complaint alleges that the Board 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 has vigorously defended against the claims in each case. The Plaintiffs in each of the cases agreed to stay their respective actions until after a decision was rendered on the Motion to Dismiss in the Buehring action noted above. Now that the Motion to Dismiss in the Buehring case has been granted in its entirety and is no longer subject to appeal, we expect to resolve these matters during the coming months. We do not believe the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse impact on the Company. (c) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal and administrative proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such other pending proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.