XML 34 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Nov. 02, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Note 12. Contingencies Certain litigation arising in the normal course of business is pending against us. The Company is, from time-to-time, subject to various legal actions and claims incidental to our business, including those arising out of alleged defects, breach of contracts, employment-related matters, environmental matters and intellectual property matters. The Company has established loss provisions for matters in which losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. The Company considers insurance coverage and third-party indemnification, among other things, when determining required accruals for pending litigation and claims. Although the outcome of potential legal actions and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, it is the Company's opinion, based on the information available, that it has adequate reserves for these liabilities. However, the ultimate outcome of any matter could require payment in excess of any amount that the Company may have accrued. Hetronic Germany-GmbH Matters For several years, Hetronic Germany-GmbH and Hydronic-Steuersysteme-GmbH (the “Fuchs companies”) served as our distributors for Germany, Austria and other central and eastern European countries pursuant to their respective intellectual property licenses and distribution and assembly agreements. The Company became aware that the Fuchs companies and their managing director, Albert Fuchs, had materially violated those agreements. As a result, the Company terminated all of its agreements with the Fuchs companies. On June 20, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against the Fuchs companies in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma alleging material breaches of the distribution and assembly agreements and seeking damages, as well as various forms of injunctive relief. The defendants filed counterclaims alleging breach of contract, interference with business relations and business slander. On April 2, 2015, the Company amended its complaint against the Fuchs companies to add additional unfair competition and Lanham Act claims and to add additional affiliated parties. A trial with respect to the matter began in February 2020. During the trial, the defendants dismissed their one remaining counterclaim with prejudice. On March 2, 2020, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company. The verdict included approximately $102 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages. On April 22, 2020, the District Court entered a permanent injunction barring defendants from selling infringing products and ordering them to return Hetronic’s confidential information. Defendants appealed entry of the permanent injunction. On May 29, 2020, the District Court held defendants in contempt for violating the permanent injunction and entered the final judgment. Defendants appealed entry of the final monetary judgment as well. The appeal of the permanent injunction and the appeal of the final judgment were consolidated into a single appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On August 24, 2021, the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court’s ruling with the exception that it instructed the District Court to modify the injunction from the entire world to all of the countries in which Hetronic sells its products. On April 20 and 21, 2022, the District Court held a hearing related to modifying the injunction pursuant to the Tenth Circuit’s opinion, and the parties have filed post-hearing briefs. The defendants also filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking to further appeal the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act in this case. The Company opposed that petition. The Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General on the petition for certiorari, and the Solicitor General recommended granting the petition. On November 4, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the petition. The Supreme Court heard arguments in this matter on March 21, 2023. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court vacated the Tenth Circuit’s August 2021 decision and remanded the matter back to the Tenth Circuit for further proceedings. On September 1, 2023, the Tenth Circuit requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on the appeal and the proper course of further proceedings. That briefing was thereafter submitted, and the Tenth Circuit heard argument in this matter on January 24, 2024. On April 23, 2024, the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court’s final judgment on the state law breach of contract and tort claims (this affirmed final judgment amount represents only approximately $22.5 million of the vacated original $113 million final judgment that had been entered in 2020) and remanding for further non-trial proceedings with respect to the appropriate remedies for the Lanham Act claims in light of the Supreme’s Court ruling that the Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially. On August 5, 2024, the District Court entered an amended permanent injunction and amended final judgment. The amended permanent injunction limited the geographic reach of the permanent injunction barring defendants from selling infringing products so that it only applies in the United States and reaffirmed the court’s prior order requiring defendants to return Hetronic’s confidential information. The amended final judgment reaffirmed the final judgment of approximately $22.5 million plus interest for the state law breach of contract and tort claims and entered judgment in an amended amount of approximately $0.3 million plus interest for the infringing U.S. sales under the Lanham Act. The deadline for any appeals of the District Court’s orders was September 4, 2024 and no appeal of those orders was filed before that deadline. The Company has not received payment of any portion of the judgment from the defendants. Like any judgment, particularly a judgment involving defendants outside of the United States, there is no guarantee that the Company will be able to collect all or any portion of the judgment. Furthermore, defendants Abitron Germany and Hetronic Germany filed for insolvency in German court in September and October 2023 respectively, and the Germany insolvency court then appointed a receiver. These insolvency proceedings could potentially adversely impact our ability to enforce or collect upon the judgment or portions of the judgment or otherwise pursue or enforce claims or rights against those defendants. Stockholder Litigation On August 26, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Company common stock between June 23, 2022 and March 6, 2024, inclusive, entitled Marie Salem v. Methode Electronics, Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, a former Chief Executive Officer, President and director of the Company and a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the Company’s business, operations and prospects, including in respect of the Company’s transition to production of more specialized components for manufacturers of electric vehicles and the Company’s operations at its facility in Monterrey, Mexico, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages along with equitable relief and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. Another purported shareholder filed a substantially similar action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 7, 2024 against the same defendants and a former Chief Operating Officer of the Company, in a case entitled City of Cape Coral Municipal General Employees Retirement Plan v. Methode Electronics, Inc., et al. The second securities class action was filed on behalf of a broader putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between December 2, 2021 and March 6, 2024. In addition, on November 26, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the current members of the Company’s Board of Directors, as well as certain former directors and executives, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Company to issue various statements that are alleged to have been false or misleading for the same reasons alleged in the securities class action complaints. The derivative lawsuit is entitled Ray Homsi v. Donald Duda, et al. (together with the Salem and City of Cape Coral matters, the “Stockholder Actions”). The Company disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the Stockholder Actions. The Stockholder Actions could result in costs and losses to the Company, including potential costs associated with the indemnification of the other defendants. At this time, given the current status of the Stockholder Actions, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, that may result from the Stockholder Actions. SEC Investigation The Company received a subpoena from the SEC dated November 1, 2024 seeking documents and information relating to, among other things, the Company’s operations in certain foreign countries, certain financial and accounting matters relating thereto, compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption laws, and material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting previously reported in its public filings. The Company is cooperating with the SEC. The subpoena and related investigation or other future requests for information could result in costs to the Company, including the expenditure of financial and managerial resources. In addition, this request may lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of legal proceedings against the Company, which in turn may lead to material fines, penalties or other liabilities. However, at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration