XML 34 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Apr. 02, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies The Company is involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject. Perfluorinated Compounds (“PFCs”) Litigation In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the “Gadsden Water Board”) filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing specific PFCs, including the Company. In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the “Centre Water Board”) filed a similar complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama. The Gadsden Water Board and the Centre Water Board both seek monetary damages and injunctive relief claiming that their water supplies contain excessive amounts of PFCs. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed dispositive motions in each case arguing that the Alabama state courts lack personal jurisdiction over them. These motions were denied. In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus directing each lower court to enter an order granting the defendants’ dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20, 2019. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an Application for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the court to reconsider its December 2019 decision. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the application for rehearing. On August 21, 2020, certain defendants, including the Company, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review of the matter. On January 19, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for review. In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia (“Rome”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is similar to the Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board complaints, again seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief related to PFCs. Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their drinking water. In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to federal court. The Company filed motions to dismiss in both of these cases. On December 17, 2020, the Superior Court of Floyd County denied the Company’s motion to dismiss in the Rome case. On September 20, 2021, the Northern District of Georgia denied the Company’s motion to dismiss in the class action. The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to defend them vigorously. Putative Securities Class Action On January 3, 2020, the Company and certain of its executive officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Securities Class Action”). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements and that the officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019 (“Class Period”). On June 29, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities Class Action against Mohawk and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum, based on the same claims and the same Class Period. The amended complaint alleges that the Company (1) engaged in fabricating revenues by attempting delivery to customers that were closed and recognizing these attempts as sales; (2) overproduced product to report higher operating margins and maintained significant inventory that was not salable; and (3) valued certain inventory improperly or improperly delivered inventory with knowledge that it was defective and customers would return it. On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 29, 2021, the court issued an order granting in part and denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on November 12, 2021, and fact discovery is ongoing. On January 26, 2022, Lead Plaintiff moved for class certification, to appoint itself as class representative, and for appointment of class counsel. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Government Subpoenas As previously disclosed, on June 25, 2020, the Company received subpoenas issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia (the “USAO”) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) relating to matters similar to the allegations of wrongdoing raised by the Securities Class Action. The Company’s Audit Committee, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, conducted a thorough internal investigation into these allegations. The Audit Committee has completed the investigation and concluded that the allegations of wrongdoing are without merit. The USAO and SEC investigations are ongoing, and the Company is cooperating fully with those authorities. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against the allegations of wrongdoing in the Securities Class Action and does not believe they have merit. Delaware State Court Action The Company and certain of its present and former executive officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware on January 30, 2020. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock in Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019. On March 27, 2020, the court granted a temporary stay of the litigation. The stay may be lifted at the close of fact discovery in the related Securities Class Action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia according to the terms set forth in the court’s order to stay litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Georgia State Court Investor Actions The Company and certain of its present and former executive officers were named as defendants in certain investor actions, filed in the State Court of Fulton County of the State of Georgia on April 22, 2021 and April 23, 2021. Four complaints brought on behalf of purported former Mohawk stockholders each allege that defendants defrauded the respective plaintiffs through false or misleading statements and thereby induced plaintiffs to purchase Company stock at artificially inflated prices. The allegations are similar to those of the Securities Class Action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The claims alleged include fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Georgia Securities Act, and violations of the Georgia Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations statute. Plaintiffs in the investor actions seek compensatory and punitive damages. On June 28, 2021, defendants filed motions to dismiss each of the four complaints and answers to the same. On October 5, 2021, all four investor actions were transferred by the State Court of Fulton County to the Metro Atlanta Business Case Division, where fact discovery is ongoing. On January 28, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the Georgia Securities Act claims as to all defendants, and the negligent misrepresentation claim as to the Company. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Separate Federal Actions The Company and certain of its present and former executive officers were named as defendants in two additional non-class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 22, 2021 and March 25, 2022, respectively. Each complaint is brought on behalf of a group of purported former Mohawk stockholders and alleges that defendants defrauded the plaintiffs through false or misleading statements and thereby induced plaintiffs to purchase Company stock at artificially inflated prices. The allegations are similar to those of the Securities Class Action. The federal law claims alleged include violations of Sections 10(b) and 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements and that the officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The state law claims alleged include fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Georgia Securities Act, and violations of the Georgia Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations statute. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. On December 13, 2021, defendants filed motions to dismiss the June 22, 2021 complaint, which remain pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Derivative Actions The Company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in certain derivative actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 18, 2020 and August 6, 2020, respectively (the “NDGA Derivative Actions”), in the Superior Court of Gordon County of the State of Georgia on March 3, 2021 and July 12, 2021 (the “Georgia Derivative Actions”), and in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2022 (the “Delaware Derivative Action”). The complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by causing the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements. The complaints are filed on behalf of the Company and seek to remedy fiduciary duty breaches occurring from April 28, 2017 to July 25, 2019. On July 20, 2020, the court in the NDGA Derivative Actions granted a temporary stay of the litigation. On October 21, 2020, the court entered an order consolidating the NDGA Derivative Actions and appointing Lead Counsel. Other shareholders of record jointly moved to intervene in the derivative actions to stay the proceedings. On September 28, 2021, the court in the NDGA Derivative Actions issued an order granting the request to intervene. On April 8, 2021, the court in the first-filed of the Georgia Derivative Actions granted a temporary stay of the litigation. On January 18, 2022, the Court in the NDGA Derivative Actions lifted the temporary stay of the litigation. On January 20, 2022, the court in the second-filed of the Georgia Derivative Actions entered an order on scheduling requiring defendants to file and serve their response to the complaint on February 21, 2022. On February 28, 2022, the court granted a stay of the Georgia Derivative Actions until the entry of a final judgment in the NDGA Derivative Actions and stipulating that the prevailing party in the NDGA Derivative Actions would be the prevailing party in the Georgia Derivative Actions. On April 6, 2022, the court granted a stay of the Delaware Derivative Action until the entry of a final judgment in the NDGA Derivative Actions and stipulating that the prevailing party in the NDGA Derivative Actions would be the prevailing party in the Delaware Derivative Action. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Belgian Tax Matter The Company has been in a dispute with the Belgian Tax Authority (the “BTA”) regarding the proper tax treatment of the royalty income arising from intellectual property (“IP”) owned by a Luxembourg subsidiary, Flooring Industries Limited Sarl (“FIL”). The BTA had assessed Unilin BV for the calendar years ending December 2005 through 2010 in an amount totaling €223,321 (including penalties but excluding interest), alleging that Unilin BV inappropriately transferred valuable IP to FIL and income associated with that IP should be taxed in Belgium. Unilin BV challenged all of these assessments and prevailed both in the Court of First Appeal in Bruges and in the Ghent Court of Appeal. In 2021, the BTA indicated it will not appeal these cases to the Supreme Court and has withdrawn all of the assessments for 2005 through 2010. Consequently, all of those tax years are now closed. Having lost under its original theory, the BTA is in the process of initiating new assessments for later years against FIL rather than Unilin BV. The BTA now alleges that FIL had a taxable presence in Belgium and should be taxed on royalties received in respect of its IP. The BTA issued initial assessments in December 2020 and June 2021 that totaled €371,696 (including penalties but excluding interest) for calendar years ending December 2013 through 2018. However, in November and December of 2021, the BTA cancelled these assessments and in April 2022 issued new assessments that total €186,734 (including penalties but excluding interest) for those years using different calculations. The Company expects an additional assessment for 2019. Under the statute of limitations, the BTA may not assess FIL for any years prior to 2013, and the Company believes that FIL’s statute of limitations is closed for 2013 through 2016, although this will be a point of contention with the BTA. These assessments involve the same underlying facts at issue in the above referenced cases where Unilin BV prevailed at two different levels. Consequently, the Company believes that its tax position in Belgium was correct and will persist with its vigorous defense. When the BTA issues tax assessments, Belgian tax law requires assurances that the taxes can be paid even while they are being disputed. Consequently, the BTA has placed liens on various properties of Unilin BV to support the original assessments discussed above. Since those assessments have been nullified by the courts, the accompanying liens have been withdrawn. Since FIL does not have property in Belgium, the BTA may require assurances from FIL to support the new assessments for 2013 through 2019. These assurances may take the form of a bond or bank guarantees. General The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year. The Company is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign environmental health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing air emissions, wastewater discharges, the use, storage, treatment, recycling and disposal of solid and hazardous materials and finished product, and the cleanup of contamination associated therewith. Because of the nature of the Company’s business, the Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs relating to compliance with such laws and regulations. The Company is involved in various proceedings relating to environmental matters and is currently engaged in environmental investigation, remediation and post-closure care programs at certain sites. The Company has provided accruals for such activities that it has determined to be both probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not expect that the ultimate liability with respect to such activities will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but acknowledges that it could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration