Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase Commitments In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve accordingly. When a potential loss reserve is recorded it is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. The total amount financed under the floor financing programs with repurchase obligations was $367,950 and $385,448 as of June 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively. Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. For fiscal year 2024, the company repurchased 17 units under repurchase agreements. Additionally, during the period from July 1, 2024 to August 29, 2024, we repurchased 19 units totaling $2.5 million subject to the Company's repurchase agreement with M&T Bank, the lender under the floor financing plan for Tommy's Boats. With respect to boats not subject to the repurchase agreement, the bankruptcy trustee has retained Gordon Brothers to sell the remaining inventory as part of liquidation sales that are ongoing. We have been in discussions with the trustee regarding the inventory being liquidated. For fiscal year 2023 and 2022, the Company did not repurchase any units under its repurchase agreements. The Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of June 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively. The Company has collateralized receivables financing arrangements with a third-party floor plan financing provider for European dealers. Under terms of these arrangements, the Company transfers the right to collect a trade receivable to the financing provider in exchange for cash but agrees to repurchase the receivable if the dealer defaults. Since the transfer of the receivable to the financing provider does not meet the conditions for a sale under ASC Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing, the Company continues to report the transferred trade receivable in other current assets with an offsetting balance recorded as a secured obligation in accrued expenses in the Company's consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company had no financing receivables recorded in other current assets and accrued expenses related to these arrangements. Contingencies Product Liability The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers. The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company's products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 9 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and, except as disclosed below, believes there are no material product liability claims as of June 30, 2024 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Litigation Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at June 30, 2024 or June 30, 2023 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings Batchelder Matters MBI and its indirect subsidiary Boats LLC were defendants in the product liability case Batchelder et al. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, f/k/a Malibu Boats, Inc.; Malibu Boats West, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of Rabun County, Georgia, Civil Action Case No. 2016-CV-0114-C (the "Batchelder I Matter"), brought by, among others, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan Paul Batchelder, deceased (“Batchelder I Plaintiffs”). The Batchelder I Plaintiffs also sued the manufacturer of the boat at issue in the case, Malibu Boats West, Inc. (“West”). West is not, and has never been, a subsidiary of MBI or Boats LLC but was a separate legal entity whose assets were purchased by Boats LLC in 2006. The case involved a personal injury accident in 2014 involving a 2000 model year boat that was manufactured by West. On August 28, 2021, the jury rejected the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ design defect claims and found that the driver of the boat was 75% at fault for the accident. Notwithstanding those findings, the jury found that Boats LLC and West negligently failed to warn of a hazard posed by the boat and that such failure was a proximate cause of the death of the decedent. The jury also found that Boats LLC is a legal successor of, and responsible for the liabilities of, West. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $80,000 and apportioned 15% of such damages to Boats LLC and 10% of such damages to West. In addition, the jury awarded $80,000 of punitive damages against Boats LLC and $40,000 of punitive damages against West. Based on the jury’s finding of successor liability, the trial court entered judgment for the full amount of the verdict against Boats LLC, with a potential maximum liability to Boats LLC of $140,000, plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 6.25% per annum. The Batchelder I Plaintiffs also filed motions, after the judgment, seeking orders requiring Boats LLC to pay pre-judgment interest and a portion of their attorney fees. The Batchelder I Plaintiffs claimed they are owed attorneys' fees of approximately $56,000. The Company opposed both motions. The trial court denied the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest and held that ruling on the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees would be premature, indicating that it would decide whether the Batchelder I Plaintiffs have the right to attorneys’ fees, and if so what amount is reasonable, if still necessary upon the resolution of Boats LLC’s post-trial motions and any related appeals. The Batchelder I Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s order denying their motion for prejudgment interest. On July 17, 2022, the trial court denied Boats LLC’s post-trial motions, and Boats LLC filed a notice of appeal. Pending resolution of the appeals process, the payment of any damages was stayed. Boats LLC was also a defendant in a related product liability case, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder, as Natural Guardians of Josh Patrick Batchelder, a minor; Darin Batchelder, individually, and as Natural Guardian of Zach Batchelder, a minor; and Kayla Batchelder (the “Batchelder II Plaintiffs” and, together with the Batchelder I Plaintiffs, the “Batchelder Plaintiffs”) v. Malibu Boats, LLC v. Dennis Michael Ficarra; Superior Court of Rabun County, Civil Action File No. 2022-CV-0034 (the “Batchelder II Matter” and, together with the Batchelder I Matter, the “Batchelder Matters”). The complaint was filed on February 9, 2022 as a purported renewal of earlier claims by the Batchelder II Plaintiffs that were dismissed without prejudice. The case involved claims by the Batchelder II Plaintiffs of their own alleged bodily injury and emotional distress stemming from the same accident involving the alleged swamping of the boat manufactured and sold by West that is the subject of the Batchelder I Matter. As noted above, West is not, and has never been, a subsidiary of MBI or Boats LLC but was a separate legal entity whose assets were purchased by Boats LLC in 2006. Four Batchelder II Plaintiffs sought damages for personal injury and punitive damages, alleging that the accident was caused by a design defect and a failure to warn. The Batchelder II Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice from the Batchelder I Matter shortly before the trial for the Batchelder I Matter, however, and thus the new complaint was a renewal action of the original complaint. On June 30, 2023, Malibu Boats, Inc. and Boats LLC entered into a Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Batchelder I Plaintiffs and the Batchelder II Plaintiffs in settlement of each of the Batchelder Matters. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, Malibu Boats, Inc., or Boats LLC, as the case may be, paid (or caused to be paid) to the Batchelder Plaintiffs and their agents a total of $100,000, of which (a) $40,000 was paid to the Batchelder Plaintiffs and their agents promptly following the execution of the Settlement Agreement and (b) $60,000 was placed in an escrow account and held by the Escrow Agent pursuant to the terms of an Escrow Agreement. All conditions for releasing the $60,000 placed in the escrow account have been satisfied. MBI and its subsidiaries, including Boats LLC, maintain liability insurance applicable to the Batchelder Matters described above with coverage up to $26,000. As of June 30, 2024, the Company had received approximately $21,000 in insurance coverage proceeds, subject in certain cases to reservations of rights by the insurance carriers. The Company contends that the insurance carriers are responsible for the entirety of the $100,000 settlement amount and related expenses, and therefore, the insurers’ payments to date are well below what they should have tendered to Boats LLC. Accordingly, on July 3, 2023, Boats LLC filed a complaint against Federal Insurance Company (a Chubb subsidiary) and Starr Indemnity & Liability Company alleging that the insurers unreasonably failed to comply with their obligations by refusing, negligently, and in bad faith, to settle covered claims within their available policy limits prior to trial. On April 8, 2024, the court dismissed Starr, noting that only Chubb had the contractual right and duty to settle the Batchelder matters prior to trial. The Court subsequently granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgement, which precludes Chubb from apportioning liability to Starr. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims against Chubb to recover the full $100,000 settlement amount and expenses (less any monies already tendered without reservation by the carriers). However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of such litigation. Tommy's Boats and Matthew Borisch On April 10, 2024, fifteen dealerships operated under common control of Tommy’s Boats (“Tommy’s Boats”) filed a complaint against MBI and its indirect subsidiary Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:24-cv-00166). The complaint alleges that MBI and Boats LLC breached obligations under dealership agreements with Tommy’s Boats, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and intentional and negligent misrepresentations relating to the parties’ commercial relationship. Tommy’s Boats is seeking monetary damages. Boats LLC has taken possession of 19 new model year 2024 boats according to a repurchase agreement with M&T Bank, the floor financing lender to Tommy’s Boats. On July 3, 2024, the trustee appointed in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases for Tommy's Boats voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the claims filed by Tommy's Boats. Pursuant to an order of the bankruptcy court, the Company has agreed to cooperate in good faith to mediate with the Chapter 11 trustee. On August 16, 2024, Matthew Borisch, the principal owner of Tommy’s Boats, filed a complaint against MBI, Boats LLC, and Jack Springer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:24-cv-00339), alleging similar allegations to those of the dismissed complaint against MBI and Boats LLC filed by Tommy’s Boats. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss. Securities Class Action Lawsuit On April 29, 2024, stockholder Seongjae Yoon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, (the “Securities Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against MBI and Jack Springer, Bruce Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-03254). The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to its business, operations, and prospects during the period from November 4, 2022 through April 11, 2024. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by not disclosing alleged material adverse facts related to the Company’s inventory and relationship with one of its former dealers, Tommy’s Boats, and accordingly, that any positive statements made during the class period about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against claims alleged in this securities class action. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss. Customer Class Action Lawsuit On May 31, 2024, a customer filed a class action complaint against MBI and Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. (Case 1:24-cv-00648). The complaint, which purports to be filed on behalf of a nationwide class of customers, alleges violation of common law, the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act based on guidance issued to customers of certain older model boats related to riding in the bow area of those boats. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.

In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve accordingly. When a potential loss reserve is recorded it is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. The total amount financed under the floor financing programs with repurchase obligations was $367,950 and $385,448 as of June 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively.

Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. For fiscal year 2024, the company repurchased 17 units under repurchase agreements. Additionally, during the period from July 1, 2024 to August 29, 2024, we repurchased 19 units totaling

$2.5 million subject to the Company's repurchase agreement with M&T Bank, the lender under the floor financing plan for Tommy's Boats. With respect to boats not subject to the repurchase agreement, the bankruptcy trustee has retained Gordon Brothers to sell the remaining inventory as part of liquidation sales that are ongoing. We have been in discussions with the trustee regarding the inventory being liquidated. For fiscal year 2023 and 2022, the Company did not repurchase any units under its repurchase agreements. The Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of June 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively.

The Company has collateralized receivables financing arrangements with a third-party floor plan financing provider for European dealers. Under terms of these arrangements, the Company transfers the right to collect a trade receivable to the financing provider in exchange for cash but agrees to repurchase the receivable if the dealer defaults. Since the transfer of the receivable to the financing provider does not meet the conditions for a sale under ASC Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing, the Company continues to report the transferred trade receivable in other current assets with an offsetting balance recorded as a secured obligation in accrued expenses in the Company's consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company had no financing receivables recorded in other current assets and accrued expenses related to these arrangements.

The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers.

The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company's products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 9 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and, except as disclosed below, believes there are no material product liability claims as of June 30, 2024 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at June 30, 2024 or June 30, 2023 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

No. 2016-CV-0114-C (the "Batchelder I Matter"), brought by, among others, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan Paul Batchelder, deceased (“Batchelder I Plaintiffs”). The Batchelder I Plaintiffs also sued the manufacturer of the boat at issue in the case, Malibu Boats West, Inc. (“West”). West is not, and has never been, a subsidiary of MBI or Boats LLC but was a separate legal entity whose assets were purchased by Boats LLC in 2006. The case involved a personal injury accident in 2014 involving a 2000 model year boat that was manufactured by West. On August 28, 2021, the jury rejected the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ design defect claims and found that the driver of the boat was 75% at fault for the accident. Notwithstanding those findings, the jury found that Boats LLC and West negligently failed to warn of a hazard posed by the boat and that such failure was a proximate cause of the death of the decedent. The jury also found that Boats LLC is a legal successor of, and responsible for the liabilities of, West. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $80,000 and apportioned 15% of such damages to Boats LLC and 10% of such damages to West. In addition, the jury awarded $80,000 of punitive damages against Boats LLC and $40,000 of punitive damages against West. Based on the jury’s finding of successor liability, the trial court entered judgment for the full amount of the verdict against Boats LLC, with a potential maximum liability to Boats LLC of $140,000, plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 6.25% per annum.

The Batchelder I Plaintiffs also filed motions, after the judgment, seeking orders requiring Boats LLC to pay pre-judgment interest and a portion of their attorney fees. The Batchelder I Plaintiffs claimed they are owed attorneys' fees of approximately $56,000. The Company opposed both motions. The trial court denied the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest and held that ruling on the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees would be premature, indicating that it would decide whether the Batchelder I Plaintiffs have the right to attorneys’ fees, and if so what amount is reasonable, if still necessary upon the resolution of Boats LLC’s post-trial motions and any related appeals. The Batchelder I Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s order denying their motion for prejudgment interest.

Boats LLC was also a defendant in a related product liability case, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder, as Natural Guardians of Josh Patrick Batchelder, a minor; Darin Batchelder, individually, and as Natural Guardian of Zach Batchelder, a minor; and Kayla Batchelder (the “Batchelder II Plaintiffs” and, together with the Batchelder I Plaintiffs, the “Batchelder Plaintiffs”) v. Malibu Boats, LLC v. Dennis Michael Ficarra; Superior Court of Rabun County, Civil Action File No. 2022-CV-0034 (the “Batchelder II Matter” and, together with the Batchelder I Matter, the “Batchelder Matters”). The complaint was filed on February 9, 2022 as a purported renewal of earlier claims by the Batchelder II Plaintiffs that were dismissed without prejudice. The case involved claims by the Batchelder II Plaintiffs of their own alleged bodily injury and emotional distress stemming from the same accident involving the alleged swamping of the boat manufactured and sold by West that is the subject of the Batchelder I Matter. As noted above, West is not, and has never been, a subsidiary of MBI or Boats LLC but was a separate legal entity whose assets were purchased by Boats LLC in 2006. Four Batchelder II Plaintiffs sought damages for personal injury and punitive damages, alleging that the accident was caused by a design defect and a failure to warn. The Batchelder II Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice from the Batchelder I Matter shortly before the trial for the Batchelder I Matter, however, and thus the new complaint was a renewal action of the original complaint.

On June 30, 2023, Malibu Boats, Inc. and Boats LLC entered into a Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Batchelder I Plaintiffs and the Batchelder II Plaintiffs in settlement of each of the Batchelder Matters. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, Malibu Boats, Inc., or Boats LLC, as the case may be, paid (or caused to be paid) to the Batchelder Plaintiffs and their agents a total of $100,000, of which (a) $40,000 was paid to the Batchelder Plaintiffs and their agents promptly following the execution of the Settlement Agreement and (b) $60,000 was placed in an escrow account and held by the Escrow Agent pursuant to the terms of an Escrow Agreement. All conditions for releasing the $60,000 placed in the escrow account have been satisfied.

MBI and its subsidiaries, including Boats LLC, maintain liability insurance applicable to the Batchelder Matters described above with coverage up to $26,000. As of June 30, 2024, the Company had received approximately $21,000 in insurance coverage proceeds, subject in certain cases to reservations of rights by the insurance carriers. The Company contends that the insurance carriers are responsible for the entirety of the $100,000 settlement amount and related expenses, and therefore, the insurers’ payments to date are well below what they should have tendered to Boats LLC. Accordingly, on July 3, 2023, Boats LLC filed a complaint against Federal Insurance Company (a Chubb subsidiary) and Starr Indemnity & Liability Company alleging that the insurers unreasonably failed to comply with their obligations by refusing, negligently, and in bad faith, to settle covered claims within their available policy limits prior to trial. On April 8, 2024, the court dismissed Starr, noting that only Chubb had the contractual right and duty to settle the Batchelder matters prior to trial. The Court subsequently granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgement, which precludes Chubb from apportioning liability to Starr. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims against Chubb to recover the full $100,000 settlement amount and expenses (less any monies already tendered without reservation by the carriers). However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of such litigation.

On April 10, 2024, fifteen dealerships operated under common control of Tommy’s Boats (“Tommy’s Boats”) filed a complaint against MBI and its indirect subsidiary Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:24-cv-00166). The complaint alleges that MBI and Boats LLC breached obligations under dealership agreements with Tommy’s Boats, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and intentional and negligent misrepresentations relating to the parties’ commercial relationship. Tommy’s Boats is seeking monetary damages. Boats LLC has taken possession of 19 new model year 2024 boats according to a repurchase agreement with M&T Bank, the floor financing lender to Tommy’s Boats. On July 3, 2024, the trustee appointed in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases for Tommy's Boats voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the claims filed by Tommy's Boats. Pursuant to an order of the bankruptcy court, the Company has agreed to cooperate in good faith to mediate with the Chapter 11 trustee. On August 16, 2024, Matthew Borisch, the principal owner of Tommy’s Boats, filed a complaint against MBI, Boats LLC, and Jack Springer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:24-cv-00339), alleging similar allegations to those of the dismissed complaint against MBI and Boats LLC filed by Tommy’s Boats. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.

On April 29, 2024, stockholder Seongjae Yoon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, (the “Securities Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against MBI and Jack Springer, Bruce Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-03254). The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to its business, operations, and prospects during the period from November 4, 2022 through April 11, 2024. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by not disclosing alleged material adverse facts related to the Company’s inventory and relationship with one of its former dealers, Tommy’s Boats, and accordingly, that any positive statements made during the class period about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against claims alleged in this securities class action. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.

On May 31, 2024, a customer filed a class action complaint against MBI and Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. (Case 1:24-cv-00648). The complaint, which purports to be filed on behalf of a nationwide class of customers, alleges violation of common law, the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act based on guidance issued to customers of certain older model boats related to riding in the bow area of those boats. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.