Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(11) Commitments and Contingencies: Litigation In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, or the District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached the earn-out and other provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with our acquisition of the Gemtech business from Gemini. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment interpreting various terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and damages in the sum of $18.6 million. In May 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. In June 2018, Gemini appealed the decision dismissing its complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, and remanded the case to the District Court to perform a traditional forum non conveniens analysis. On September 6, 2019, the parties stipulated that they do not contest that the venue is proper in the District of Idaho. On November 4, 2019, we filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint and a counterclaim against Gemini and its stockholders at the time of the signing of the Asset Purchase Agreement. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action. We are a defendant in nine product liability cases and are aware of five other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief, allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. In January 2018, the trial court granted defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dismissing the case in its entirety. In February 2018, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. On May 23, 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings, the trial court’s dismissal of the City’s complaint. On July 8, 2019, defendants filed a Petition to Transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court. Briefing was completed in the Indiana Supreme Court on August 5, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court denied our petition to transfer. The case will now return to the trial court. In May 2018, we were named in an action related to the Parkland, Florida shooting, filed in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, seeking a declaratory judgment that a Florida statute that provides firearm manufacturers and dealers immunity from liability when their legally manufactured and lawfully sold firearms are later used in criminal acts only applies to civil actions commenced by governmental agencies not private litigants. In August 2018, we moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it seeks an impermissible advisory opinion. On December 6, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On December 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief. On December 13, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, with prejudice. In August 2019, Primus Group, LLC filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division against us and other firearms manufacturers, alleging Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, racketeering enterprise, and intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff, which operates as an “entertainment venue” in Columbus, Ohio, purports to bring this action on behalf of “all persons entitled to freely attend schools, shopping locations, churches, entertainment venues, and workplaces in the United States without the intrusion of individuals armed with assault weapons.” In addition to compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the distribution and sale of “assault weapons.” On August 20, 2019, the court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. On September 3, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims of public nuisance, negligent design, and failure to warn. On October 9, 2019, the U.S. District Court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the case in its entirety. On October 11, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 1, 2019, the Sixth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal for failure to pay the required fee. On November 4, 2019, plaintiff-appellant filed, and the Sixth Circuit granted, a motion to reinstate the case. Appellant’s brief is due on March 13, 2020. Our response is due by April 13, 2020. We are a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The action was filed on December 16, 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto on July 22, 2018, and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class action. We intend to vigorously oppose the proceedings. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any incident and any results from them or any injuries were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party. On July 31, 2019, our competitor, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against us in the U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire, seeking injunctive relief and damages. Plaintiff alleges trade dress infringement, involving our Thompson/Center brand T/CR22 rifle, as well as violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act. A hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction was held in November 2019. On December 2, 2019, plaintiff withdrew its motion for preliminary injunction. John Pidcock, as trustee of the ASPC Creditor Trust (appointed under the plan of reorganization of AcuSport Corp., or AcuSport, as debtor in possession under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code), is the plaintiff in two separate actions against us in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The first seeks recovery of alleged preferential transfers received by us from AcuSport in the aggregate amount of $4.2 million. The second seeks turnover of goods allegedly owed to AcuSport by us under one or more of our promotional programs in the amount of $1.5 million. We have filed answers to both complaints denying all material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. We believe we have strong defenses to these actions and intend to continue to vigorously defend them. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded. In addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $18.6 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We believe that our accruals for product liability cases and claims are a reasonable quantitative measure of the cost to us of product liability cases and claims. We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management. We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and a review of the merit of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore, we have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided adequate accruals for defense costs. We have recorded our liability for defense costs before consideration for reimbursement from insurance carriers. We have also recorded the amount due as reimbursement under existing policies from the insurance carriers as a receivable shown in other current assets and other assets. At this time, an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jan. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(11) Commitments and Contingencies:

Litigation

In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, or the District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached the earn-out and other provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with our acquisition of the Gemtech business from Gemini. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment interpreting various terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and damages in the sum of $18.6 million. In May 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. In June 2018, Gemini appealed the decision dismissing its complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, and remanded the case to the District Court to perform a traditional forum non conveniens analysis. On September 6, 2019, the parties stipulated that they do not contest that the venue is proper in the District of Idaho. On November 4, 2019, we filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint and a counterclaim against Gemini and its stockholders at the time of the signing of the Asset Purchase Agreement. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action.

We are a defendant in nine product liability cases and are aware of five other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief, allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. In January 2018, the trial court granted defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dismissing the case in its entirety. In February 2018, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. On May 23, 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings, the trial court’s dismissal of the City’s complaint. On July 8, 2019, defendants filed a Petition to Transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court. Briefing was completed in the Indiana Supreme Court on August 5, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court denied our petition to transfer. The case will now return to the trial court.

In May 2018, we were named in an action related to the Parkland, Florida shooting, filed in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, seeking a declaratory judgment that a Florida statute that provides firearm manufacturers and dealers immunity from liability when their legally manufactured and lawfully sold firearms are later used in criminal acts only applies to civil actions commenced by governmental agencies not private litigants. In August 2018, we moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it seeks an impermissible advisory opinion. On December 6, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On December 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief. On December 13, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, with prejudice.

In August 2019, Primus Group, LLC filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division against us and other firearms manufacturers, alleging Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, racketeering enterprise, and intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff, which operates as an “entertainment venue” in Columbus, Ohio, purports to bring this action on behalf of “all persons entitled to freely attend schools, shopping locations, churches, entertainment venues, and workplaces in the United States without the intrusion of individuals armed with assault weapons.” In addition to compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the distribution and sale of “assault weapons.” On August 20, 2019, the court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. On September 3, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims of public nuisance, negligent design, and failure to warn. On October 9, 2019, the U.S. District Court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the case in its entirety. On October 11, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 1, 2019, the Sixth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal for failure to pay the required fee. On November 4, 2019, plaintiff-appellant filed, and the Sixth Circuit granted, a motion to reinstate the case. Appellant’s brief is due on March 13, 2020. Our response is due by April 13, 2020.

We are a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The action was filed on December 16, 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto on July 22, 2018, and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class action. We intend to vigorously oppose the proceedings.

We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any incident and any results from them or any injuries were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party.

On July 31, 2019, our competitor, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against us in the U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire, seeking injunctive relief and damages. Plaintiff alleges trade dress infringement, involving our Thompson/Center brand T/CR22 rifle, as well as violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act. A hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction was held in November 2019. On December 2, 2019, plaintiff withdrew its motion for preliminary injunction.

John Pidcock, as trustee of the ASPC Creditor Trust (appointed under the plan of reorganization of AcuSport Corp., or AcuSport, as debtor in possession under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code), is the plaintiff in two separate actions against us in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The first seeks recovery of alleged preferential transfers received by us from AcuSport in the aggregate amount of $4.2 million. The second seeks turnover of goods allegedly owed to AcuSport by us under one or more of our promotional programs in the amount of $1.5 million. We have filed answers to both complaints denying all material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. We believe we have strong defenses to these actions and intend to continue to vigorously defend them.

We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded.

In addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $18.6 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We believe that our accruals for product liability cases and claims are a reasonable quantitative measure of the cost to us of product liability cases and claims.

We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management.

We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and a review of the merit of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore, we have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided adequate accruals for defense costs.

We have recorded our liability for defense costs before consideration for reimbursement from insurance carriers. We have also recorded the amount due as reimbursement under existing policies from the insurance carriers as a receivable shown in other current assets and other assets.

At this time, an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made.