XML 26 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation and other proceedings, including matters related to commercial and intellectual property disputes, as well as trade, regulatory and other claims related to its business. Other than as described below, the Company believes that all current proceedings are routine in nature and incidental to the conduct of its business, and that the ultimate resolution of any such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In re Under Armour Securities Litigation On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the “District Court”) were consolidated under the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB (the “Consolidated Securities Action”). On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Securities Action, Aberdeen City Council as Administrating Authority for the North East Scotland Pension Fund (“Aberdeen”), joined by named plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund (“Bucks County”), filed a consolidated amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) against the Company, the Company’s then-Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, and former Chief Financial Officers Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson. The Amended Complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act against the officers named in the Amended Complaint, claiming that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products. The class period identified in the Amended Complaint was September 16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), in connection with the Company’s public offering of senior unsecured notes in June 2016. The Securities Act claims were asserted against the Company, Mr. Plank, Mr. Molloy, the Company’s directors who signed the registration statement pursuant to which the offering was made and the underwriters that participated in the offering. The Amended Complaint alleged that the offering materials utilized in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company’s growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company’s products. On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without prejudice. Lead plaintiff Aberdeen, joined by named plaintiff Monroe County Employees’ Retirement Fund (“Monroe”), filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 16, 2018, asserting claims under the Exchange Act and naming the Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 17, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. In September 2019, plaintiffs Aberdeen and Bucks County filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging the decisions by the District Court on September 19, 2018 and August 19, 2019 (the “Appeal”). The Appeal was fully briefed as of January 16, 2020. On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two purported shareholders of the Company filed putative securities class actions in the District Court against the Company and certain of its current and former executives (captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03209-RDB (“Patel”), and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03581-RDB (“Waronker”), respectively). The complaints in Patel and Waronker alleged violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Exchange Act, against all defendants, and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act against the current and former officers named in the complaints. The complaints claimed that the defendants’ disclosures and statements supposedly misrepresented or omitted that the Company was purportedly shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier and that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) since July 2017. On November 18, 2019, Aberdeen, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Securities Action, filed in the District Court a motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 (the “Rule 62.1 Motion”) seeking relief from the final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Rule 62.1 Motion alleged that purported newly discovered evidence entitled Aberdeen to relief from the District Court’s final judgment. Aberdeen also filed motions seeking (i) to consolidate the Patel and Waronker cases with the Consolidated Securities Action, and (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff over the consolidated cases. On January 22, 2020, the District Court granted Aberdeen’s Rule 62.1 motion and indicated that it would grant a motion for relief from the final judgment and provide Aberdeen with the opportunity to file a third amended complaint if the Fourth Circuit remanded for that purpose. The District Court further stated that it would, upon remand, consolidate the Patel and Waronker cases with the Consolidated Securities Action and appoint Aberdeen as the lead plaintiff over the consolidated cases. On August 13, 2020, the Fourth Circuit remanded the Appeal to the District Court for the limited purpose of allowing the District Court to rule on Aberdeen’s motion seeking relief from the final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting that relief. The District Court’s order also consolidated the Patel and Waronker cases into the Consolidated Securities Action and appointed Aberdeen as lead plaintiff over the Consolidated Securities Action. On October 14, 2020, Aberdeen, along with named plaintiffs Monroe and KBC Asset Management NV, filed a third amended complaint (the “TAC”) in the Consolidated Securities Action, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Mr. Plank. The TAC alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the Company's products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s performance and future prospects and by engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier. The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to disclose that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with DOJ and the SEC since July 2017. The class period identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015 through November 1, 2019. On December 4, 2020, the Company and Mr. Plank filed a motion to dismiss the TAC for failure to state a claim. That motion was denied by the Court on May 18, 2021. Discovery in the Consolidated Securities Action commenced on June 4, 2021 and is currently ongoing. On July 23, 2021, the Company and Mr. Plank filed an answer to the TAC denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims asserted in the TAC. The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Securities Action are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of this matter. State Court Derivative Complaints In June and July 2018, two purported stockholder derivative complaints were filed in Maryland state court (in cases captioned Kenney v. Plank, et al. (filed June 29, 2018) and Luger v. Plank, et al. (filed July 26, 2018), respectively). The cases were consolidated on October 19, 2018 under the caption Kenney v. Plank, et. al. The consolidated complaint in the Kenney matter names Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, certain former Company executives, and Sagamore Development Company, LLC (“Sagamore”) as defendants, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste claims against the individual defendants and asserts a claim against Sagamore for aiding and abetting certain of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The consolidated complaint seeks damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. The consolidated complaint includes allegations similar to those in the Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action matter discussed above, challenging, among other things, the Company’s disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company’s products, as well as stock sales by certain individual defendants. The consolidated complaint also makes allegations related to the Company’s purchase of certain parcels of land from entities controlled by Mr. Plank (through Sagamore). Sagamore purchased the parcels in 2014. Its total investment in the parcels was approximately $72.0 million, which included the initial $35.0 million purchase price for the property, an additional $30.6 million to terminate a lease encumbering the property and approximately $6.4 million of development costs. As previously disclosed, in June 2016, the Company purchased the unencumbered parcels for $70.3 million in order to further expand the Company’s corporate headquarters to accommodate its growth needs. The Company negotiated a purchase price for the parcels that it determined represented the fair market value of the parcels and approximated the cost to the seller to purchase and develop the parcels. In connection with its evaluation of the potential purchase, the Company engaged an independent third-party to appraise the fair market value of the parcels, and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors engaged its own independent appraisal firm to assess the parcels. The Audit Committee determined that the terms of the purchase were reasonable and fair, and the transaction was approved by the Audit Committee in accordance with the Company’s policy on transactions with related persons. On March 29, 2019, the court in the consolidated Kenney action granted the Company’s and the defendants’ motion to stay that case pending the outcome of both the Consolidated Securities Action and an earlier-filed derivative action asserting similar claims relating to the Company’s purchase of parcels in Port Covington (which derivative action has since been dismissed in its entirety). The court ordered stay in the consolidated Kenney action remains in effect at this time. In March 2021, the court in the consolidated Kenney action issued a notice of contemplated dismissal for lack of prosecution without prejudice pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-507. The court issued a second notice of contemplated dismissal for lack of prosecution without prejudice in August 2021. Prior to the filing of the derivative complaints in Kenney v. Plank, et al. and Luger v. Plank, et al., both of the purported stockholders had sent the Company’s Board of Directors a letter demanding that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the derivative complaints. Following an investigation, a majority of disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims should not be pursued by the Company and informed both of these purported stockholders of that determination. Between August 11, 2020 and October 21, 2020, three additional purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in Maryland state court (in cases captioned Cordell v. Plank, et al. (filed August 11, 2020), Klein v. Plank, et al. (filed October 2, 2020), and Salo v. Plank, et al. (filed October 21, 2020), respectively). The complaints in these cases name Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, and certain current and former Company executives as defendants, and name the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints in these actions assert allegations similar to those in the TAC filed in the Consolidated Securities Action matter discussed above, including allegations challenging (i) the Company’s disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company’s products; (ii) the Company’s practice of shifting sales between quarterly periods supposedly to appear healthier and its purported failure to disclose that practice; (iii) the Company’s internal controls with respect to revenue recognition and inventory management; (iv) the Company’s supposed failure to timely disclose investigations by the SEC and DOJ; (v) the compensation paid to the Company’s directors and executives while the alleged wrongdoing was occurring; and/or (vi) stock sales by certain individual defendants. The complaints assert breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste claims against the individual defendants. These complaints seek damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. Prior to the filing of the derivative complaints in these three actions, none of the purported stockholders made a demand that the Company’s Board of Directors pursue the claims asserted in the complaints. In March 2021, the court issued an order dismissing the Klein matter for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-507. In October 2021, the court issued an order (i) consolidating the Cordell and Salo actions with the consolidated Kenney action into a single consolidated derivative action (the "Consolidated State Derivative Action"); (ii) designating the Kenney action as the lead case; and (iii) specifying that the scheduling order in the Kenney action shall control the Consolidated State Derivative Action. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the derivative complaints filed in Maryland state court are without merit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of these proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of these matters. Federal Court Derivative Complaints In July 2018, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in a case captioned Andersen v. Plank, et al. The complaint in the Andersen matter names Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors and certain former Company executives as defendants, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the individual defendants, and seeks damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. The complaint includes allegations similar to those in the Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action matter discussed above, challenging, among other things, the Company’s disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company’s products and stock sales by certain individual defendants. The Andersen action was stayed from December 2018 to August 2019 and again from September 2019 to September 2020 (the “2019 Stay Order”). Pursuant to a series of court ordered stipulations, the terms of the 2019 Stay Order remained in effect through and including January 19, 2021. The stay expired on January 19, 2021. Prior to the filing of the complaint in the Andersen action, the plaintiff had sent the Company’s Board of Directors a letter demanding that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the complaint. Following an investigation, a majority of disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims should not be pursued by the Company and informed the plaintiff of that determination. During the pendency of the Andersen action, the plaintiff sent the Company’s Board of Directors a second letter demanding that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the TAC in the Consolidated Securities Action. Following an investigation, a majority of disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims should not be pursued by the Company and informed the plaintiff of that determination. In September 2020, two additional derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (in cases captioned Olin v. Plank, et al. (filed September 1, 2020), and Smith v. Plank, et al. (filed September 8, 2020), respectively). Prior to the filing of the derivative complaints in these two actions, neither of the purported stockholders made a demand that the Company’s Board of Directors pursue the claims asserted in the complaints. On November 20, 2020, another derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in a case captioned Viskovich v. Plank, et al. Prior to filing his derivative complaint, the plaintiff in the Viskovich matter made a demand that the Company’s Board of Directors pursue the claims asserted in the complaint but filed suit before the Board had responded to the demand. Following an investigation, a majority of disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims asserted in the demand by the plaintiff in the Viskovich action should not be pursued by the Company and informed the plaintiff of that determination. The complaints in the Olin, Smith, and Viskovich cases name Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, and certain current and former Company executives as defendants, and name the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints in these actions assert allegations similar to those in the TAC filed in the Consolidated Securities Action matter discussed above, including allegations challenging (i) the Company’s disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company’s products; (ii) the Company’s practice of shifting sales between quarterly periods supposedly to appear healthier and its purported failure to disclose that practice; (iii) the Company’s internal controls with respect to revenue recognition and inventory management; (iv) the Company’s supposed failure to timely disclose investigations by the SEC and DOJ; and/or (v) the compensation paid to the Company’s directors and executives while the alleged wrongdoing was occurring. The complaints assert breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and/or corporate waste claims against the individual defendants. The Viskovich complaint also asserts a contribution claim against certain defendants under the federal securities laws. These complaints seek damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. On January 27, 2021, the court entered an order consolidating for all purposes the Andersen, Olin, Smith and Viskovich actions into a single action under the caption Andersen v. Plank, et al. (the “Federal Court Derivative Action”). In February 2021, counsel for the Smith and Olin plaintiffs, on the one hand, and counsel for the Andersen and Viskovich plaintiffs, on the other hand, filed motions seeking to be appointed as lead counsel in the Federal Court Derivative Action. These motions are currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Federal Court Derivative Action are without merit and intends to defend this matter vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of this matter.

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