Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Liabilities related to legal proceedings are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the associated amount can be reasonably estimated. Where the estimated amount of loss is within a range of amounts and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount is accrued. As additional information becomes available, potential liabilities are reassessed and the estimates revised, if necessary. Any accrued liabilities are subject to change in the future based on new developments in each matter, or changes in circumstances, which could have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. In December 2020, the Company asserted claims for indemnification against the sellers (the “Sellers”) under the terms of the Share Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired Voortman (the “Agreement”). The claims were for damages arising out of alleged breaches by the Sellers of certain representations, warranties and covenants contained in the Agreement relating to periods prior to the closing of the acquisition. The Company also submitted claims relating to these alleged breaches under the representation and warranty insurance policy (“RWI”) it purchased in connection with the acquisition. In the third quarter of 2022, the RWI insurers paid the Company $42.5 million CAD (the RWI coverage limit) (the “Proceeds”) related to these breaches. Per agreement with the RWI insurers, under no circumstances will the Company be required to return the Proceeds. On November 3, 2022, pursuant to the agreement with the RWI insurer, Voortman brought claims in the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice (the “Claim”), related to the breaches against certain of the Sellers. The Claim alleges the seller defendants made certain non-disclosures and misrepresentations to induce the Company to overpay for Voortman. The Company is seeking damages of $109 million CAD representing the amount of the aggregate liability of the Sellers for indemnification under the Agreement, $5.0 million CAD in punitive or aggravated damages, interest, proceedings fees and any other relief the presiding court deems appropriate. A portion of any recovery will be shared with the RWI insurers. Although the Company strongly believes that its Claim is meritorious, no assurance can be given as to whether the Company will recover all, or any part, of the amounts it is pursuing. As of November 3, 2023, the following five complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of the Company: •On October 12, 2023, a purported stockholder named James Walsh filed a complaint against Hostess Brands and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Walsh v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 1:23-cv-01142-UNA (the “First Complaint”); •On October 12, 2023, a purported stockholder named Ryan O’Dell filed a complaint against Hostess Brands and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned O’Dell v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 1:23-cv-08972 (the “Second Complaint”); •On October 17, 2023, a purported stockholder named Elaine Wang filed a complaint against Hostess Brands and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wang v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 1:23-cv-09119 (the “Third Complaint”); •On October 19, 2023, a purported stockholder named Brian Dixon filed a complaint against Hostess Brands and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Dixon v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 1:23-cv-01176-UNA (the “Fourth Complaint,” together with the First Complaint, Second Complaint, and Third Complaint, the “Federal Complaints”); and •On October 20, 2023, a purported stockholder named Dean Drulias filed a complaint against Hostess Brands, the members of the Board, and Smucker in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas Civil Court Department, captioned Drulias v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 23CV05685 Div4 (the “State Complaint” and, together with the Federal Complaints, the “Offer Litigation”). The Federal Complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder, by omitting or misrepresenting certain allegedly material information from the Schedule 14D-9. The Federal Complaints further allege that such omissions and misrepresentations rendered the Schedule 14D-9 materially incomplete, false, and/or misleading. The State Complaint asserts, among other things, (a) a claim against Smucker for violation of the Kansas Uniform Securities Act, and (b) claims against Hostess Brands, Inc., the members of its Board, and Smucker under Kansas common law for (i) negligent misrepresentation and concealment and (ii) negligence. The State Complaint further alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 and the Offer to Exchange are deceptive because they omit material facts which render them incomplete and misleading. As of November 3, 2023, Hostess Brands, Inc. had also received certain stockholder demand letters (collectively, the “Demand Letters”), which generally seek that certain allegedly omitted information in the Schedule 14D-9 be disclosed. An estimate cannot be made regarding the potential loss on these complaints and demand letters.

Liabilities related to legal proceedings are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the associated amount can be reasonably estimated. Where the estimated amount of loss is within a range of amounts and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount is accrued. As additional information becomes available, potential liabilities are reassessed and the estimates revised, if necessary. Any accrued liabilities are subject to change in the future based on new developments in each matter, or changes in circumstances, which could have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

In December 2020, the Company asserted claims for indemnification against the sellers (the “Sellers”) under the terms of the Share Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired Voortman (the “Agreement”). The claims were for damages arising out of alleged breaches by the Sellers of certain representations, warranties and covenants contained in the Agreement relating to periods prior to the closing of the acquisition. The Company also submitted claims relating to these alleged breaches under the representation and warranty insurance policy (“RWI”) it purchased in connection with the acquisition. In the third quarter of 2022, the RWI insurers paid the Company $42.5 million CAD (the RWI coverage limit) (the “Proceeds”) related to these breaches. Per agreement with the RWI insurers, under no circumstances will the Company be required to return the Proceeds.

On November 3, 2022, pursuant to the agreement with the RWI insurer, Voortman brought claims in the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice (the “Claim”), related to the breaches against certain of the Sellers. The Claim alleges the seller defendants made certain non-disclosures and misrepresentations to induce the Company to overpay for Voortman. The Company is seeking damages of $109 million CAD representing the amount of the aggregate liability of the Sellers for indemnification under the Agreement, $5.0 million CAD in punitive or aggravated damages, interest, proceedings fees and any other relief the presiding court deems appropriate. A portion of any recovery will be shared with the RWI insurers. Although the Company strongly believes that its Claim is meritorious, no assurance can be given as to whether the Company will recover all, or any part, of the amounts it is pursuing.

•On October 12, 2023, a purported stockholder named James Walsh filed a complaint against Hostess Brands and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Walsh v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 1:23-cv-01142-UNA (the “First Complaint”);

•On October 12, 2023, a purported stockholder named Ryan O’Dell filed a complaint against Hostess Brands and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned O’Dell v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 1:23-cv-08972 (the “Second Complaint”);

•On October 17, 2023, a purported stockholder named Elaine Wang filed a complaint against Hostess Brands and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wang v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 1:23-cv-09119 (the “Third Complaint”);

•On October 19, 2023, a purported stockholder named Brian Dixon filed a complaint against Hostess Brands and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Dixon v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 1:23-cv-01176-UNA (the “Fourth Complaint,” together with the First Complaint, Second Complaint, and Third Complaint, the “Federal Complaints”); and

•On October 20, 2023, a purported stockholder named Dean Drulias filed a complaint against Hostess Brands, the members of the Board, and Smucker in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas Civil Court Department, captioned Drulias v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Case 23CV05685 Div4 (the “State Complaint” and, together with the Federal Complaints, the “Offer Litigation”).

The Federal Complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder, by omitting or misrepresenting certain allegedly material information from the Schedule 14D-9. The Federal Complaints further allege that such omissions and misrepresentations rendered the Schedule 14D-9 materially incomplete, false, and/or misleading. The State Complaint asserts, among other things, (a) a claim against Smucker for violation of the Kansas Uniform Securities Act, and (b) claims against Hostess Brands, Inc., the members of its Board, and Smucker under Kansas common law for (i) negligent misrepresentation and concealment and (ii) negligence. The State Complaint further alleges that the

As of November 3, 2023, Hostess Brands, Inc. had also received certain stockholder demand letters (collectively, the “Demand Letters”), which generally seek that certain allegedly omitted information in the Schedule 14D-9 be disclosed.