XML 41 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 16. 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 (the “District Court”) against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (collectively, the “Securities Complaints”). The Securities Complaints were ultimately 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. During the summer of 2017, a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed, which named as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers (collectively, “Defendants”) and asserted 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 Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. After Defendants’ initial motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice to replead in October 2017, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2019 (the “Second Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint again named as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 20, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”). By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The parties ultimately submitted supplemental briefing between May 12, 2022 and June 23, 2022, and in June 2022, the District Court referred Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint to a United States Magistrate Judge (the “Magistrate Judge”) for a Report and Recommendation. On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. On September 29, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed notice of appeal on October 26, 2023, appealing the District Court’s decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the Second Circuit. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on February 12, 2024. Defendants opposed, and the appeal was fully briefed as of June 3, 2024. The Court held oral argument on Plaintiffs’ appeal on December 5, 2024 and the Parties await a decision. Additional Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaints Filed in Federal Court The former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company are defendants in a consolidated action originally filed in 2017 in the Eastern District of New York under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al., Barnes v. Simon, et al., Merenstein v. Heyer, et al., and Oliver v. Berke, et al. Plaintiffs in the consolidated action, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action”), allege the violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs alleged in their Amended Complaint that the Company’s former directors and certain former officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results and 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 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 was rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, described above. After the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Securities Action, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs in that action filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 6, 2019. The parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action thereby agreed to continue the stay of Defendants’ time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through 30 days after a decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of an agreed-upon stay, Defendants in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action had until May 6, 2020 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint in this matter. This deadline was extended, and Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action Complaint on June 23, 2020, with Plaintiffs’ opposition due August 7, 2020. On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand on the current Board containing overlapping factual allegations to those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board of Directors had finished investigating and resolved, among other things, that the demand should be rejected. In light of the Second Circuit vacating the District Court’s judgment in the Consolidated Securities Action referenced above and remanding the case for further proceedings, the Parties submitted a joint status report on December 29, 2021 requesting that the District Court continue the temporary stay pending the District Court’s reconsideration of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. The parties have most recently agreed to extend the stay through the earlier of March 28, 2025 or 30 days after the Second Circuit issues a decision on Plaintiffs’ currently pending appeal. Baby Food Litigation Since February 2021, the Company has been named in numerous consumer class actions alleging that the Company’s Earth’s Best® baby food products (the “Products”) contain unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals, namely lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Those actions have now been transferred and consolidated as a single lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-678 (the “Consolidated Proceeding”), which generally alleges that the Company violated various state consumer protection laws and asserts other state and common law warranty and unjust enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the presence of these metals, arguing that consumers would have either not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the Company made adequate disclosures. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on November 7, 2022, which was opposed by the plaintiffs. On May 9, 2023, upon consent of the parties, the Court stayed the Consolidated Proceeding pending the Second Circuit’s decision on appeal in In re Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. Baby Food Litigation, 21 Civ. 133 (N.D.N.Y.) (the “Beech-Nut Case”). Accordingly, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew. By summary order dated January 18, 2024, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment dismissing the Beech-Nut Case and remanded for further proceedings. On February 15, 2024, the Company served a renewed motion to dismiss the Consolidated Proceeding. Plaintiffs served their opposition on March 14, 2024, and the Company served its reply on April 4, 2024. Following oral argument on August 1, 2024, the Court issued an order on December 27, 2024 in which it granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the alleged presence of lead, cadmium, mercury, or other substances, as well as any claims challenging the use of the “USDA Organic” seal on the Products’ labeling, and denied the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the alleged presence of arsenic in the Products. The Company filed its answer to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 23, 2025. One consumer class action is pending in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, which the court has stayed in deference to the Consolidated Proceeding. The Company denies the allegations in these lawsuits and contends that its baby foods are safe and properly labeled. The claims raised in these lawsuits were brought in the wake of a highly publicized report issued by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy on Oversight and Reform, dated February 4, 2021 (the “House Report”), addressing the presence of heavy metals in baby foods made by certain manufacturers, including the Company. Since the publication of the House Report, the Company has also received information requests with respect to the advertising and quality of its baby foods from certain governmental authorities, as such authorities investigate the claims made in the House Report. The Company is fully cooperating with these requests and has provided documents and other requested information. The Company has been named in one civil government enforcement action, State of New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Nurture, Inc., et al., which was filed by the New Mexico Attorney General against the Company and several other manufacturers based on the alleged presence of heavy metals in their baby food products. The Company and several other manufacturers moved to dismiss the New Mexico Attorney General’s lawsuit, and the Court denied that motion. The Company filed its answer to the New Mexico Attorney General’s amended complaint on April 23, 2022, and discovery is set to commence. The Company denies the New Mexico Attorney General’s allegations and maintains that its baby foods are safe, properly labeled, and compliant with New Mexico law. In addition to the consumer class actions discussed above, the Company is currently named in numerous lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging some form of personal injury from the ingestion of the Company’s Products, purportedly due to unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals. These lawsuits generally allege injuries related to neurological development disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Multidistrict Litigation • On January 4, 2024, Plaintiffs in federal cases across the country filed a Motion to Transfer Actions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings. On April 11, 2024, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted Plaintiffs’ Motion and transferred the cases to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In Re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3101) has been assigned to District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. On April 15, 2024, Judge Corley issued Pretrial Order No. 1 staying all outstanding discovery proceedings and pending motions and vacating all previously scheduled hearing dates. There are approximately 30 federal cases filed against the Company pending in the multi-district litigation (“MDL”). Plaintiffs filed their Master Complaint on July 15, 2024. The MDL will first proceed with general causation discovery. On December 18, 2024, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Master Complaint. A hearing is set for February 27, 2025. California State Court Cases • There are currently seven cases against the Company pending in California state court, including six in Los Angeles Superior Court and one in Alameda Superior Court. The Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council seeking to coordinate the Alameda Superior Court and Los Angeles Superior Court cases. The Judicial Council granted the JCCP petition and on June 4, 2024, Judge Lawrence P. Riff (Los Angeles Superior Court) was assigned as trial coordination judge. All but one of the cases have been stayed. • In one of the Los Angeles cases, Landon R. v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., No. 23STCV24844, fact discovery has closed, and expert discovery is ongoing. Trial is currently set for July 14, 2025. Palmquist v. The Hain Celestial Group • In the matter Palmquist v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a jury trial commenced on February 6, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Company moved for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiffs’ case. The Court granted the Company’s motion, finding no liability for the Company. The Court entered Final Judgment in the Company’s favor on March 3, 2023. • On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal in the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs appealed, and on May 28, 2024, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case and vacated the final judgement of the district court. the Company filed a petition for en banc reconsideration, which the Fifth Circuit denied. The case has been remanded to Texas state court, where it is now pending in the District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. Discovery is ongoing and the case has been set for a new trial on September 22, 2025. • On January 7, 2025, the Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Other Cases • On December 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a new case, Graham v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. et al., in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on January 13, 2025. The Company denies that its Products led to any of the alleged injuries and will defend these cases vigorously. That said, as is common in circumstances of this nature, additional lawsuits may be filed against the Company in the future, asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. Such lawsuits may be resolved in a manner adverse to us, and we may incur substantial costs or damages not covered by insurance, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and business. SEC Investigation In November 2023, the staff of the SEC informed the Company it was conducting an investigation relating to Hain Celestial and requested documents primarily concerning (i) the Company’s acquisition of one business and disposition of another business and certain related accounting matters and (ii) trading activity and other matters related to the Company’s earnings guidance in certain previous fiscal years. The Company is cooperating with the SEC in this investigation. Other In addition to the matters described above, the Company is and may be a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. With respect to all litigation and related matters, the Company records a liability when the Company believes it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. As of the end of the period covered by this report, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of the matters disclosed in this note. It is possible that some matters could require the Company to pay damages, incur other costs or establish accruals in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated as of the end of the period covered by this report.

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