XML 214 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.2.u1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies Merger Litigation In February 2022, three purported DSG stockholders made demands pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law to inspect certain books and records of DSG (collectively, the “Books and Records Demands”). One stated purpose of the Books and Records Demands was to investigate questions of director disinterestedness and independence and the alleged possibility of wrongdoing, mismanagement and/or material non-disclosure related to the Special Committee’s and the DSG Board of Directors’ approval of the Mergers. On March 16, 2022, one of the purported DSG stockholders who previously made a Books and Records Demand filed a lawsuit entitled Robert Garfield v. Lawson Products, Inc., Case No. 2022-0252, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against DSG (the “Garfield Action”). On March 22, 2022, another of the purported DSG stockholders who previously made a Books and Records Demand filed a lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Edelman v. Lawson Products, Inc., Case No. 2022-0270, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against DSG (the “Edelman Action”). The Garfield Action and the Edelman Action, which were consolidated and re-captioned as Lawson Products, Inc. Section 220 Litigation, Case No. 2022-0270, are collectively referred to as the “Books and Records Actions.” The Books and Records Actions sought to compel inspection of certain books and records of DSG to investigate questions of director disinterestedness and independence and the alleged possibility of wrongdoing, mismanagement and/or material non-disclosure related to the Special Committee’s and the DSG Board of Directors’ approval of the Mergers. Following briefing, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a trial on July 14, 2022 to adjudicate the Books and Records Actions. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court ruled orally that the stockholders’ demands would be granted only in one respect (production of documents sufficient to show the identities of any guarantors of debt of the acquired companies) and the Court denied the remainder of the stockholders’ requests. The Court’s ruling was memorialized in an order issued on July 20, 2022. Thereafter, DSG produced excerpts of certain documents as required by the Court’s ruling and subsequent order. On October 3, 2022, the plaintiffs in the Books and Records Actions filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Derivative Action”) entitled Jeffrey Edelman and Robert Garfield v. John Bryan King et al., Case No. 2022-0886, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Delaware Chancery Court”). The Derivative Action names as defendants J. Bryan King, Lee S. Hillman, Bianca A. Rhodes, Mark F. Moon, Andrew B. Albert, I. Steven Edelson and Ronald J. Knutson (collectively, “Director and Officer Defendants”), and LKCM Headwater Investments II, L.P., LKCM Headwater II Sidecar Partnership, L.P., Headwater Lawson Investors, LLC, PDLP Lawson, LLC, LKCM Investment Partnership, L.P., LKCM Micro-Cap Partnership, L.P., LKCM Core Discipline, L.P. and Luther King Capital Management Corporation (collectively, the “LKCM Defendants”). Purporting to act on behalf of DSG, in the Derivative Action the plaintiffs allege, among other things, various claims of alleged breach of fiduciary duty against the Director and Officer Defendants and the LKCM Defendants in connection with the Mergers. The Derivative Action seeks, among other things, money damages, equitable relief and the costs of the Derivative Action, including reasonable attorneys’, accountants’ and experts’ fees. On October 24, 2022, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed PDLP Lawson, LLC and LKCM Investment Partnership, L.P. from the Derivative Action without prejudice. The Delaware Chancery Court held a hearing on September 13, 2023, to hear arguments on the defendants’ motions to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, in rulings issued on September 13, 2023, and September 19, 2023, the entire complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. On October 16, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of their claims with respect to all defendants other than the members of the Special Committee (Messrs. Hillman, Albert and Edelson) and Mr. Moon. On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff Garfield voluntarily dismissed his appeal. The voluntary dismissal did not impact the appeal by Plaintiff Edelman, who continued to advance his appeal. The Delaware Supreme Court held a hearing on May 22, 2024 to hear arguments on the plaintiff’s appeal. On June 4, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Defendants and issued an order affirming the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of the complaint. At this time, all of the lawsuits filed in connection with the Mergers have been dismissed. No assurance can be given that additional lawsuits will not be filed against DSG and/or its directors and officers and/or other persons or entities in connection with the Mergers. Cyber Incident Litigation On February 10, 2022, DSG disclosed that its computer network was the subject of a cyber incident potentially involving unauthorized access to certain confidential information (the “Cyber Incident”). On April 4, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit (the “Cyber Incident Suit”) was filed against DSG entitled Lardone Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Lawson Products, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02118, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The plaintiff in this case, who purports to represent the class of individuals harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by DSG in connection with the Cyber Incident, asserts a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief related to the potential unauthorized access by third parties to personal identifiable information and protected health information. DSG disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the Cyber Incident Suit. The Cyber Incident Suit could result in additional costs and losses to DSG, although, at this time, DSG is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, that might result from adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties or other resolution of these proceedings based on the early stage of this proceeding, the absence of specific allegations as to alleged damages, the uncertainty as to the certification of a class or classes and the size of any certified class, if applicable, and the lack of resolution of significant factual and legal issues. Accordingly, no amounts have been recorded in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the Cyber Incident Suit. No assurance can be given that additional lawsuits will not be filed against DSG and/or its directors and officers and/or other persons or entities in connection with the Cyber Incident. Environmental Matter In 2012, it was determined that a Company-owned site in Decatur, Alabama, contained hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater as a result of historical operations prior to the Company’s ownership. The Company retained an environmental consulting firm to further investigate the contamination, prepare a remediation plan, and enroll the site in the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM”) voluntary cleanup program. A remediation plan was approved by ADEM in 2018. The plan consists of chemical injections throughout the affected area, as well as subsequent monitoring of the area. The injection process was completed in the first quarter of 2019 and the environmental consulting firm is monitoring the affected area. At June 30, 2024 the Company had approximately $0.1 million accrued for potential monitoring costs included in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The costs for future monitoring are not significant and have been fully accrued. The Company does not expect to capitalize any amounts related to the remediation plan.

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 -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration