XML 32 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Licensing and Similar Agreements and Other Purchasing Obligations In the normal course of business, Mattel enters into contractual arrangements to obtain and protect Mattel's right to create and market certain products. These arrangements include royalty payments pursuant to licensing agreements that routinely contain provisions for guarantees or minimum expenditures during the term of the contract. Mattel also enters into contractual arrangements for commitments of future purchases of goods and services to ensure availability and timely delivery. Current and future commitments for guaranteed payments reflect Mattel's focus on expanding its product lines through alliances with businesses in other industries. Licensing and similar agreements in effect at December 31, 2022 contain provisions for future minimum payments as shown in the following table:
| Licensing and Similar Agreements
| (In thousands)
2023 | $ | 70,196 |
2024 | 63,633 |
2025 | 52,733 |
2026 | 1,138 |
2027 | 1,000 |
Thereafter | — |
| $ | 188,700 |
Royalty expense for 2022, 2021, and 2020 was $230.8 million, $184.3 million, and $158.5 million, respectively. The following table shows the future minimum obligations for purchases of inventory, services, and other items as of December 31, 2022:
| Other Purchase Obligations
| (In thousands)
2023 | $ | 301,889 |
2024 | 61,313 |
2025 | 40,074 |
2026 | 27,450 |
2027 | 24,587 |
Thereafter | 6,062 |
| $ | 461,375 |
Insurance Mattel has a wholly-owned subsidiary, Far West Insurance Company, Ltd. ("Far West"), that was established to insure Mattel's workers' compensation, general, automobile, product liability, and property risks. For the year ended December 31, 2022, Far West insured the first $1.0 million per occurrence for workers' compensation risks, the first $0.5 million per occurrence for general and automobile liability risks, the first $2.0 million per occurrence for product liability losses occurring prior to February 1, 2020, and the first $5.0 million per occurrence for product liability risks thereafter, and up to $1.0 million per occurrence for property risks. Various insurance companies that have an "A" or better AM Best rating at the time the policies are purchased reinsured Mattel's risk in excess of the amounts insured by Far West. Mattel's liability for workers' compensation, general, automobile, product liability, and property claims at December 31, 2022 and 2021 totaled $14.2 million and $13.0 million, respectively, and is primarily included in other noncurrent liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. Loss reserves are accrued based on Mattel's estimate of the aggregate liability for claims incurred. Litigation Litigation Related to Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda. In April 1999, Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda. (formerly known as Trebbor Informática Ltda.) filed a lawsuit against Mattel do Brasil before the 15th 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 December 31, 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 U.S. 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 class-wide basis. In October 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition to appeal the denial of certification of the damages and injunctive relief classes. Thirty-two 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 thirty-six 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 have threatened 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. Mattel also is in discussions with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") regarding a request from the CPSC that Mattel increase the proportional cash refund available to consumers who participate in the recall of the Sleeper first announced in 2019. 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 U.S. 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. A single stockholder has appealed the court's approval of the settlement, and the appeal is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 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 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 were also filed 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 approved by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2022, Mattel received a settlement payment in the amount of $7 million, less attorneys' fees, paid by Mattel's insurers and PwC, and further agreed to institute certain governance enhancements requested by the plaintiffs. The settlement did not entail any admission of fault or liability by any of the defendants. Following approval of the settlement, the various derivative cases were dismissed with prejudice by each court.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 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 https://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 https://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