Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Litigation	Note 21—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 and a lead plaintiff appointed. 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 dismissal with prejudice was ordered on November 18, 2016, and final judgment thereon of dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 12, 2016. The foregoing is a summary of the pleadings and is subject to the text of the pleadings which are on file with the Court. 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) were dismissed and only the elements of claim (iii) not relating to the NantWorks joint venture remained. Thus, there were 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 was done in November 2016. The impact of the settlement has been reflected in the consolidated financial statements. The Company is a party to, and certain of its property is the subject of, various pending claims and legal proceedings that routinely arise in the ordinary course of its business, but the Company does not believe that any of these claims or proceedings will have a material effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations.

Note 21—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 and a lead plaintiff appointed. 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 dismissal with prejudice was ordered on November 18, 2016, and final judgment thereon of dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 12, 2016. The foregoing is a summary of the pleadings and is subject to the text of the pleadings which are on file with the Court.

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) were dismissed and only the elements of claim (iii) not relating to the NantWorks joint venture remained. Thus, there were 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 was done in November 2016. The impact of the settlement has been reflected in the consolidated financial statements.

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