XML 36 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments And Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Securities Class Actions Filed in Federal Court On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Flora Complaint”); (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Lynn Complaint”); and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Spadola Complaint” and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the “Securities Complaints”). On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the “Consolidated Securities Action”), and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017 (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers (collectively, the “Defendants”) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants filed the reply on January 16, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Court requested additional briefing relating to certain aspects of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In accordance with this request, Lead Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental brief on April 18, 2018, and Defendants submitted an opposition on May 2, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on May 9, 2018, and Defendants submitted a sur-reply on May 16, 2018. Stockholder Derivative Complaints Filed in State Court On September 16, 2016, a stockholder derivative complaint, Paperny v. Heyer, et al. (the “Paperny Complaint”), was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, lack of oversight and corporate waste. On December 2, 2016 and December 29, 2016, two additional stockholder derivative complaints were filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the Board of Directors and certain officers under the captions Scarola v. Simon (the “Scarola Complaint”) and Shakir v. Simon (the “Shakir Complaint” and, together with the Paperny Complaint and the Scarola Complaint, the “Derivative Complaints”), respectively. Both the Scarola Complaint and the Shakir Complaint allege breach of fiduciary duty, lack of oversight and unjust enrichment. On February 16, 2017, the parties for the Derivative Complaints entered into a stipulation consolidating the matters under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”) in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County, ordering the Shakir Complaint as the operative complaint. On November 2, 2017, the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until April 11, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the parties filed a proposed stipulation agreeing to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until October 4, 2018, which the Court granted on May 3, 2018. On October 9, 2018, the Court further stayed this matter until December 4, 2018. Additional Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaints Filed in Federal Court On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. (the “Silva Complaint”) and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the “Barnes Complaint”), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company’s directors and certain officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the “Merenstein Complaint”). On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action”) and to appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the “Oliver Complaint”), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants’ time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after a decision is rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the consolidated Securities Class Actions, described above. Center for Environmental Health v. Save Mart Supermarkets, et.al., Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County On August 19, 2015, the Center for Environmental Health (“CEH”), a private enforcer, filed a complaint under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (the “Enforcement Act”) (commonly referred to as “Proposition 65”), naming various defendants, including the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company is required to provide warnings for certain of its products for alleged exposure to the substance listed under the Enforcement Act as “acrylamide.” The other defendants named in the action are five retailers and one distributor, all of which are named for the Company’s products at issue. Acrylamide is a chemical that can form in some foods during high-temperature cooking processes, such as frying, roasting and baking. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties in the amount of $2,500 per day (unrounded) for each alleged violation, and CEH’s attorneys’ fees and costs. To date, the Company has answered the complaint, denying the allegations, and engaged in discovery, including fact discovery and expert discovery. The Court bifurcated the trial into two phases for liability and remedies, respectively, and the first phase of the trial is expected to be limited to determining liability and the Company’s establishment of the “no significant risk level.” The parties previously sought a continuance of the trial date to January 14, 2019 and a stay of the litigation through October 13, 2018 in order to pursue mediation. On August 27, 2018, the Court issued an order granting the parties’ stipulation and continuing the trial date to January 14, 2019 per the parties’ request. On October 16, 2018, following a mediation on October 3, 2018, CEH and the Company executed a proposed consent judgment (“Consent Judgment”) to resolve the above-referenced action in its entirety. The Consent Judgment sets acrylamide standards for potato- and sweet-potato based fried or baked snack foods. The Consent Judgment requires the Company to pay total of $586 in non-contingent settlement payments. In addition, the Consent Judgment sets a series of separate contingent payments if the Company exercises certain options in the future with respect to injunctive terms. The Consent Judgment does not take effect until the Court approves it and enters it as a judgment. A hearing date on the motion for approval of the Consent Judgment is scheduled to take place on December 18, 2018. SEC Investigation As previously disclosed, the Company voluntarily contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) in August 2016 to advise it of the Company’s delay in the filing of its periodic reports and the performance of the independent review conducted by the Audit Committee. The Company has reached an agreement with the staff, subject to approval by the Commission, that fully resolves this matter, without any finding of intentional wrongdoing and without any monetary penalty, while noting the Company’s ongoing cooperation. The settlement, if approved, relates to the Company’s previously disclosed material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting. Other In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is and may be a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, the Company believes the probable final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position, cash flows or liquidity.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration