XML 25 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.24.2.u1
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation

From time to time, the Company is subject to various claims and contingencies which are in the scope of ordinary and routine litigation incidental to its business, including those related to regulation, business transactions, employee-related matters and taxes, among others. When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, the likelihood of any loss or exposure is assessed. If it is probable that a loss will result and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records a liability for the loss and discloses the possible loss in the consolidated financial statements. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.

On September 23, 2020, the Center for Advanced Public Awareness (“CAPA”) served a 60-Day Notice of Violation on the Company, alleging that the Company violated California’s Health and Safety Code (“Prop 65”) because of the amount of lead in the Company’s Diaper Rash Cream and seeking statutory penalties and product warnings available under Prop 65. On October 22, 2021, CAPA filed a complaint in California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco (the “Court”) for the alleged Prop 65 violations contained in its 60-Day Notice of Violation. The Company filed its answer and notice of related cases against Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc., Burt's Bees, Inc., and Hain Celestial Group, Inc. on January 7, 2022 and has stipulated to relate these cases and transfer them to the Court's Complex Division. On April 30, 2024, the Company filed its motion for summary judgment. The Company's motion for summary judgment is pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The matter’s outcome and materiality are uncertain at this time. Therefore, the Company cannot estimate the probability of loss or make an estimate of the loss or range of loss in this matter.

On September 15, 2021, Cody Dixon filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging federal securities law violations by the Company, certain current officers and directors, and certain underwriters in connection with the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”). A second putative class action complaint containing similar allegations against the Company and certain current officers and directors was filed by Stephen Gambino on October 8, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. These related complaints have been transferred to the same court and a Lead Plaintiff has been appointed in the matter, and a putative consolidated class action complaint was filed by the Lead Plaintiff on February 21, 2022, alleging claims and seeking relief under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company’s IPO. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the putative consolidated class action complaint was filed on March 14, 2022. On July 18, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. On May 1, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in the consolidated class action was granted in part and denied in part, with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California limiting the certified class to only those persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded common stock pursuant and traceable to the Company’s IPO offering documents prior to August 19, 2021, as well as all persons and entities that acquired ownership of a trading account, retirement account, or any other similar investment account or portfolio containing the Company’s publicly traded common stock that was purchased or otherwise acquired pursuant and traceable to the IPO offering documents prior to August 19, 2021, and were damaged thereby. On August 14, 2023 the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint naming as additional defendants Catterton Management Company L.L.C., L Catterton VIII, L.P., L. Catterton VIII Offshore, L.P., THC Shared Abacus, LP, Catterton Managing Partner VIII, L.L.C., and C8 Management, L.L.C. On October 16, 2023, those additional defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with respect to the claims against them. On January 31, 2024, that motion to dismiss was granted by the court to the extent those additional defendants challenged the claims as untimely. The court granted Lead Plaintiff leave to amend within fourteen days of that order. On February 14, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed a further amended Second Amended Complaint against the additional defendants. The additional defendants filed a motion to dismiss the further amended Second Amended Complaint, which was denied by the court on April 22, 2024. A derivative complaint was filed by Hayato Ono on behalf of the Company on November 29, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste, gross mismanagement, and federal securities law violations by the Company’s directors and certain officers. On December 17, 2021, a second derivative complaint containing similar allegations against the Company’s directors and certain officers was filed by Mike Wang in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. These two federal derivative cases have been transferred to the same judge who is presiding over the securities class action complaints. A third derivative complaint was filed by Leah Bisch and Raluca Corobana in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles on January 3, 2022 with similar allegations. A fourth derivative complaint was filed by David Butler in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on October 19, 2022 with similar allegations. Each of these federal and state court derivative cases have been stayed pending the outcome of a motion for summary judgment in the securities class action. These matters are in the preliminary stages of litigation with uncertain outcomes at this time. Therefore, the Company cannot estimate the probability of loss or make an estimate of the loss or range of loss in these matters.

On August 10, 2022, Catrice Sida and Kris Yerby filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment related to plant-based claims on certain of the Company’s wipes products and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, punitive damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its motion to dismiss on October 17, 2022. On December 6, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss was denied. The Company’s motion to stay pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ review of the Central District of California’s decision in Whiteside v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 5:22-cv-1988 JGB (SPx), 2023 WL 4328175 (C.D.
Cal. June 1, 2023) was denied on September 5, 2023. On February 20, 2024, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement to notify the court that the parties have agreed to settle the matter on an individual, non-class basis. The Court granted the plaintiffs' Stipulation of Dismissal on July 2, 2024.

As of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the Company was not subject to any other currently pending legal matters or claims that based on its current evaluation are expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows should such matters be resolved unfavorably.

Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to investors, directors and officers with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company’s breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company, or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. These indemnifications may survive termination of the underlying agreement and the maximum potential number of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. The maximum potential number of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. The Company has never been involved in litigation in connection with these indemnification arrangements. As of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the Company has not accrued a liability for these guarantees as the likelihood of incurring a payment obligation, if any, in connection with these guarantees is not probable or reasonably estimable due to the unique facts and circumstances involved.