XML 36 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies Litigation Related to Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda. In April 1999, Yellowstone do Brasil Ltd. (formerly known as Trebbor Informática Ltda.) filed a lawsuit against Mattel do Brasil before the 15 th Civil Court of Curitiba, State of Parana, requesting the annulment of its security bonds and promissory notes given to Mattel do Brasil as well as damages due to an alleged breach of an oral exclusive distribution agreement between the parties relating to the supply and sale of toys in Brazil. Yellowstone's complaints sought alleged loss of profits plus an unspecified amount of damages. Mattel do Brasil filed its defenses to these claims and simultaneously presented a counterclaim for unpaid accounts receivable for goods supplied to Yellowstone. In April 2018, Mattel do Brasil entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter, but the settlement was later rejected by the courts, subject to a pending appeal by Mattel. In October 2018, the Superior Court of Justice issued a final ruling in favor of Yellowstone on the merits of Yellowstone's claims. Previously, the courts had ruled in Mattel's favor on its counterclaim. In October 2019, Mattel reached an agreement with Yellowstone's former counsel regarding payment of the attorney's fees portion of the judgment. In November 2019, Yellowstone initiated an action to enforce its judgment against Mattel, but did not account for an offset for Mattel's counterclaim. In January 2020, Mattel obtained an injunction, staying Yellowstone's enforcement action pending resolution of Mattel's appeal to enforce the parties' April 2018 settlement. As of June 30, 2022, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to the Yellowstone matter and has accrued a reserve, which is not material. Litigation Related to the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper A number of putative class action lawsuits filed between April 2019 and October 2019 are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper"). In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight sleep for infants. The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 10 statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep. The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the federal courts’ Multi-District Litigation program. In June 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify damages and injunctive relief classes under New York law, but granted plaintiffs' request to certify a New York issue class to resolve two issues on a classwide basis. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for leave to appeal the court's denial of certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Mattel has filed a response opposing that petition and, in the alternative, a cross-petition to appeal the portion of the order certifying the issue class. Thirty-six additional lawsuits filed between April 2019 and July 2022 are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper caused the fatalities of or injuries to forty children. Several lawsuits have been settled and/or dismissed. Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional plaintiffs who are threatening to assert similar claims. In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Kumar v. Bradley, et al., filed July 7, 2020) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment related to the development, marketing, and sale of the Sleeper. The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's current and former officers and directors. In August 2020, the derivative action was stayed pending further developments in the class action lawsuits. In August 2021, a second similar derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Armon v. Bradley, et al., filed August 30, 2021), which is also stayed. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Litigation and Investigations Related to Whistleblower Letter In December 2019 and January 2020, two stockholders filed separate complaints styled as class actions against Mattel, Inc. and certain of its former officers (the "Mattel Defendants"), as well as others, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The two complaints were consolidated in April 2020 and an amended complaint was filed in May 2020. The complaints rely on the results of an investigation announced by Mattel in October 2019 regarding allegations in a whistleblower letter and claim that Mattel misled the market in several of its financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017. The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the plaintiffs and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in September 2021. Following a mediation on October 25, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action lawsuits, which was later approved by the court. In February 2022, the Mattel Defendants paid $86 million in settlement of the claims against them, which was funded in full by Mattel’s insurers. The settlement does not entail any admission of fault or liability by the Mattel Defendants, which the Mattel Defendants have expressly contested throughout the pendency of the litigation. In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Moher v. Kreiz, et al., filed April 9, 2020) making allegations that are substantially identical to, or are based upon, the allegations of the class action lawsuits. The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's current and former officers and directors, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), with Mattel, Inc. named as a nominal defendant. Subsequently, a nearly identical derivative action was filed by a different stockholder against the same defendants. The second lawsuit is styled as an amended complaint and replaces a complaint making unrelated allegations in a previously filed lawsuit already pending in Delaware federal court (Lombardi v. Kreiz, et al., amended complaint filed April 16, 2020). In May 2020, the Moher and Lombardi derivative actions were consolidated and stayed pending further developments in the class action lawsuits. In June 2021, a third similar derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Chagnon v. Kreiz, et al., filed June 22, 2021). Seven additional derivative actions asserting similar claims are also pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Owen v. Euteneuer, et al., filed May 12, 2021; Andersen v. Georgiadis, et al., filed May 18, 2021; Armon v. Euteneuer, et al., filed June 29, 2021; Haag v. Euteneuer, et al., filed September 9, 2021; Shumacher v. Kreiz, et al., filed October 19, 2021; Mizell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al., filed October 29, 2021; and Behrens v. Euteneuer, et al., filed November 18, 2021). An additional derivative action was also filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California (City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al. filed October 27, 2021). On March 11, 2022, the parties to the above actions engaged in a private mediation, after which defendants and certain of the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle the derivative claims asserted in certain of the actions. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of settlement, which was filed with the Court of Chancery on July 1, 2022 and remains subject to court approval, Mattel will receive a settlement payment in the amount of $7 million, less attorneys' fees, to be paid by Mattel's insurers and PwC, and further agreed to institute certain governance enhancements requested by the plaintiffs. The settlement does not entail any admission of fault or liability by any of the defendants. The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs, equitable relief and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Mattel believes that the estimated loss, if any, will be immaterial. Mattel has also received subpoenas from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), seeking documents related to the whistleblower letter and subsequent investigation, and has responded to those subpoenas. Mattel has also responded to requests from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") related to this matter. Mattel is in discussions with the SEC about resolving the matter. As of June 30, 2022, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued a reserve, which is not material. Mattel cannot predict the ultimate outcome of any potential investigation resolution or legal action in this matter, or whether such outcome will result in a material impact on Mattel’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration