Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Litigation	Note 15 — Litigation On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett (collectively the “Individual Defendants”), and the Company (collectively, “Defendants”). On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the “Class Action”) were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointed. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) against Defendants which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial projections and performance as part of its public filings and earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the Company’s forward looking statements, guidance and other public statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as well as attorneys’ fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to replead. A Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on July 8, 2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on July 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and a decision has not been issued. The foregoing is a summary of the pleadings and is subject to the text of the pleadings which are on file with the Court. We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit, and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. On February 25, 2014, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Central District of California by Advanced Advisors, G.P. against the Company, nominally, and against Messrs. Berman, Bennett, Miller, Skala, Glick, Ellin, Almagor, Poulsen and Reilly and Ms. Brodsky (Advanced Partners, G.P., v. Berman, et al., CV14-1420 (DSF)).On March 6, 2014, a second shareholder derivative action alleging largely the same claims against the same defendants was filed in the Central District of California by Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System (Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v, Berman et al., CV14-1670 (GHF). On April 17, 2014, the cases were consolidated under Case No. 2:14-01420-JAK (SSx) (the “Derivative Action”). On April 30, 2014, a consolidated amended complaint (“CAC”) was filed, which alleged (i) a claim for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21(D) of the Securities Exchange Act related to allegations made in the Class Action; (ii) derivative and direct claims for alleged violations of Section 14 of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder related to allegedly misleading statements about Mr. Berman’s compensation plan in the Company’s October 25, 2013 proxy statement; (iii) derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duty related to the Company’s response to an unsolicited indication of interest from Oaktree Capital, stock repurchase, standstill agreement with the Clinton Group, and decisions related to the NantWorks joint venture; and (iv) claims against Messrs. Berman and Bennett for breach of fiduciary duty related to the Class Action. The CAC seeks compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and declaratory and equitable relief. The foregoing is a summary of the CAC and is subject to the text of the CAC, which is on file with the Court. A motion to dismiss the CAC or, in the alternative, to stay the CAC, was filed in May 2014. The Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part with leave for plaintiff to file an amended pleading. Plaintiff declined to do so. Accordingly, claims i, ii and iv have been dismissed and only the elements of claim iii not relating to the NantWorks joint venture remain. Thus, there are no surviving claims against Messrs. Poulsen, Reilly and Bennett and Ms. Brodsky and the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to strike their names as defendants in the CAC. Pleadings in response to the CAC were filed on October 30, 2014, which are on file with the Court. The matter was referred to mediation by the Court and the parties, at the mediation, reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action. Thereafter the parties entered into a memorandum of such agreement, subject to Court approval. A motion was filed seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and establishment of the procedure for final approval of the settlement; preliminary approval of the settlement was granted and a hearing regarding final approval of the proposed settlement and attorneys’ fees in connection therewith took place on November 2, 2015. At the hearing, the Judge indicated that he would approve the settlement with a formal order, and that he would take the attorneys’ fee issue under advisement. We are a party to, and certain of our property is the subject of, various pending claims and legal proceedings that routinely arise in the ordinary course of our business, but we do not believe that any of these claims or proceedings will have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Note 15 — Litigation

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett (collectively the “Individual Defendants”), and the Company (collectively, “Defendants”). On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the “Class Action”) were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointed. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) against Defendants which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial projections and performance as part of its public filings and earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the Company’s forward looking statements, guidance and other public statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as well as attorneys’ fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to replead. A Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on July 8, 2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on July 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and a decision has not been issued. The foregoing is a summary of the pleadings and is subject to the text of the pleadings which are on file with the Court. We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit, and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

On February 25, 2014, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Central District of California by Advanced Advisors, G.P. against the Company, nominally, and against Messrs. Berman, Bennett, Miller, Skala, Glick, Ellin, Almagor, Poulsen and Reilly and Ms. Brodsky (Advanced Partners, G.P., v. Berman, et al., CV14-1420 (DSF)).On March 6, 2014, a second shareholder derivative action alleging largely the same claims against the same defendants was filed in the Central District of California by Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System (Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v, Berman et al., CV14-1670 (GHF). On April 17, 2014, the cases were consolidated under Case No. 2:14-01420-JAK (SSx) (the “Derivative Action”). On April 30, 2014, a consolidated amended complaint (“CAC”) was filed, which alleged (i) a claim for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21(D) of the Securities Exchange Act related to allegations made in the Class Action; (ii) derivative and direct claims for alleged violations of Section 14 of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder related to allegedly misleading statements about Mr. Berman’s compensation plan in the Company’s October 25, 2013 proxy statement; (iii) derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duty related to the Company’s response to an unsolicited indication of interest from Oaktree Capital, stock repurchase, standstill agreement with the Clinton Group, and decisions related to the NantWorks joint venture; and (iv) claims against Messrs. Berman and Bennett for breach of fiduciary duty related to the Class Action. The CAC seeks compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and declaratory and equitable relief. The foregoing is a summary of the CAC and is subject to the text of the CAC, which is on file with the Court. A motion to dismiss the CAC or, in the alternative, to stay the CAC, was filed in May 2014. The Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part with leave for plaintiff to file an amended pleading. Plaintiff declined to do so. Accordingly, claims i, ii and iv have been dismissed and only the elements of claim iii not relating to the NantWorks joint venture remain. Thus, there are no surviving claims against Messrs. Poulsen, Reilly and Bennett and Ms. Brodsky and the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to strike their names as defendants in the CAC. Pleadings in response to the CAC were filed on October 30, 2014, which are on file with the Court. The matter was referred to mediation by the Court and the parties, at the mediation, reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action. Thereafter the parties entered into a memorandum of such agreement, subject to Court approval. A motion was filed seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and establishment of the procedure for final approval of the settlement; preliminary approval of the settlement was granted and a hearing regarding final approval of the proposed settlement and attorneys’ fees in connection therewith took place on November 2, 2015. At the hearing, the Judge indicated that he would approve the settlement with a formal order, and that he would take the attorneys’ fee issue under advisement.

We are a party to, and certain of our property is the subject of, various pending claims and legal proceedings that routinely arise in the ordinary course of our business, but we do not believe that any of these claims or proceedings will have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.