XML 30 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.8.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies
 
(a) Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws.

The complaint alleged that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The Plaintiffs sought restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The purported classes did not seek damages for physical injuries. The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court considered class certification motions on August 18, 2016, and on September 30, 2016, denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. In December 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Company filed a Motion to Sever the Claims made by each of the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2017 following the denial of class certification by the District Court which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Reconsideration at the District Court with respect to the denial of class certification on April 12, 2017 based on a change in the law. That Motion was denied on June 30, 2017. The Court also granted the Company's Motion to Sever the claims on June 30, 2017, dissolving the potential class and requiring the Plaintiffs to file individual cases in their home states if they wished to proceed. In September 2017, the Company entered into settlement agreements with each of the Plaintiffs and their cases were then dismissed by the District Court. The settlement amounts were not material in nature.

(b) David Buehring, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., Scott L. Thompson, and Barry A. Hytinen, filed March 24, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International, Inc., and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased Tempur Sealy common stock between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its then existing and future financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company does not believe the claims have merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. A Motion to Dismiss the case was filed by the Company on October 5, 2017. The case is in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of the case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

(c) Myla Gardner v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 10, 2017; Joseph L. Doherty v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 20, 2017; and Paul Onesti v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 21, 2017.

During July 2017, three putative shareholder derivative suits were filed against the Company, each member of its Board of Directors and two of its officers. Each complaint alleges that the Board of Directors and officers caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, which was a violation of the fiduciary duties they owed to the Company. The Company does not believe any of the suits have merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in each case. The Plaintiffs in each of the cases have agreed to stay their respective actions until after a decision is rendered on the Motion to Dismiss in the Buehring action noted above. These cases are in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of each case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

(d) Mattress Firm, Inc. v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC and Sealy Mattress Company, filed March 30, 2017.

On March 30, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur-Pedic and Sealy Mattress (two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company) in the District Court of Harris County, Texas by Mattress Firm. The complaint alleges breach of contract, tortious interference and seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of its agreements with the Company. On April 7, 2017, the Company's subsidiaries named above filed suit against Mattress Firm, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division seeking injunctive relief and damages for trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act, and breach of contract and other state law violations. The complaint alleges that Mattress Firm violated the parties' transition agreements dated January 30, 2017, and consequently, federal and state law, by its use of the Company’s trademarks after April 3, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the complaint was amended to add a claim by Sealy Mattress for nonpayment by Mattress Firm for products sold and delivered. On May 23, 2017, the complaint was further amended to add allegations that Mattress Firm continued to use the Company’s trade names and trademarks on its website and in advertising in an inappropriate manner. On July 11, 2017, the Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Mattress Firm from using the Company’s names and marks in such manner. The Company does not believe the claims asserted by Mattress Firm have merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Discovery is proceeding in the case. The cases are in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome remains unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.    

(e) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal and administrative proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such other pending proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.