XML 26 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.24.3
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
License Agreements
The Company enters into license agreements with various licensors of copyrighted and trademarked characters and design in connection with the products that it sells. The agreements generally require royalty payments based on product sales and in some cases may require minimum royalty and other related commitments. These license agreements are complex, and typically grant the Company’s licensors the right to audit our compliance with the terms and conditions of such agreements. Any such audit could result in a dispute over whether the Company has paid the proper royalties and a requirement that the Company pay additional royalties, the amounts of which could be material. As of September 30, 2024, we had a reserve of $23.9 million on our balance sheet related to ongoing and future royalty audits, based on estimates of the costs the Company expects to incur.
Employment Agreements
The Company has employment agreements with certain officers. The agreements include, among other things, the potential to receive an annual bonus based on certain performance metrics of the Company, as defined by the board of directors, and up to one year’s severance pay beyond termination date in connection with certain termination events.
Debt
The Company is party to a Credit Agreement which includes a Term Loan Facility and a Revolving Credit Facility. The Company is also party to an Equipment Finance Loan. See Note 4, Debt.
Tax Receivable Agreement
The Company is party to the Tax Receivable Agreement that provides for the payment by the Company to the TRA Parties under certain circumstances. See Note 5, Liabilities under Tax Receivable Agreement.
Leases
The Company has entered into non-cancellable operating leases for office, warehouse, and distribution facilities, with original lease periods expiring through 2032. Some operating leases also contain the option to renew for five-year periods at prevailing market rates at the time of renewal. In addition to minimum rent, certain of the leases require payment of real estate taxes, insurance, common area maintenance charges, and other executory costs.
Legal Contingencies
The Company is involved in claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages, which are not covered by insurance. For certain pending matters, accruals have not been established because such matters have not progressed sufficiently through discovery, and/or development of important factual information and legal information is insufficient to enable the Company to estimate a range of possible loss, if any. An adverse determination in one or more of these pending matters could have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
The Company is, and may in the future become, subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in or outside the ordinary course of business. For example, several stockholder derivative actions based on the earnings announcement and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019 have been brought on behalf of the Company against certain of its directors and officers. Specifically, on April 23, June 5, and June 10, 2020, the actions captioned Cassella v. Mariotti et al., Evans v. Mariotti et al., and Igelido v. Mariotti et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 6, 2020, these three actions were consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc. Derivative Litigation, and on August 13, 2020, the consolidated action was stayed. On May 9, 2022, another complaint, asserting substantially similar claims, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Smith v. Mariotti, et al. On July 5, 2022, two purported stockholders filed an additional derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Fletcher v. Mariotti et al. In March 2023, the Company reached a non-monetary settlement in principle in In re Funko, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Smith v. Mariotti, and Fletcher v. Mariotti et al. and the actions were stayed pending finalization of the settlement. On March 4, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Court in the Smith v. Mariotti litigation, which would have the effect of resolving each of the three derivative cases. As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims on behalf of the corporation in exchange for a set of corporate governance reforms and attorney’s fees and expenses. The attorney’s fees and expenses will be paid out of Funko’s directors and officers’ insurance. The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval on July 26, 2024 and scheduled a hearing date for final approval of the settlement to be held on November 15, 2024.
On June 11, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a related derivative action, captioned Silverberg v. Mariotti, et al., in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company moved to dismiss the Silverberg complaint on April 3, 2023. Plaintiff responded on May 3, 2023, and briefing was completed on May 25, 2023. The motion remains pending before the Court of Chancery. On March 5, 2024, the Company informed the Court that Plaintiffs in the Smith v. Mariotti matter had moved for preliminary approval of settlement, which, upon final approval, would release all claims arising out of the same subject matter, including the claims asserted in Silverberg v. Mariotti, et al. On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in support of the Motion for Settlement Approval of Final Approval of Derivative Settlement in the Smith v. Mariotti matter.
Additionally, between November 16, 2017 and June 12, 2018, seven purported stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental Capital, the underwriters of its IPO, and certain other defendants.
On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation. On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental, and certain other defendants. The Company moved to dismiss twice, and the Court twice granted the Company’s motions to dismiss, the second time with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed, and on November 1, 2021, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal decision in most respects. On May 4, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court denied the Company’s petition, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The Company filed its answer on September 19, 2022 and the Court certified the case as a class action on November 6, 2023.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), as amended, by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC in connection with the Company’s IPO and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory statutory damages and rescissory damages in account of the consideration paid for the Company’s Class A common stock by the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 21, 2024, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle. If the Court approves the settlement, the litigation will be resolved. Any losses that the Company believes are probable will be paid directly by the Company’s applicable insurance policies. The Company has accrued a liability, and offsetting receivable, of $14.75 million on its condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2024. No assurance can be made that this matter either individually or together with the potential for similar suits, will not result in a material financial exposure, which could have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial condition and results of operations.
On January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to the Company’s corporate “Up-C” structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary duties against certain current and former officers and directors. On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue, and the Defendants again moved to dismiss on August 12, 2022. On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and also moved for attorneys’ fees. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on February 8, 2023; briefing on Plaintiff’s fee application was completed on April 10, 2023. The Court heard oral argument on both motions on July 24, 2023. On December 18, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ application for an interim fee. We filed our answer on January 26, 2024, and discovery is currently ongoing. On March 13, 2024, the representative plaintiff moved to withdraw as a plaintiff in the action, and another purported stockholder moved to intervene as representative plaintiff. Both motions remain pending.
On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC, as well as in earnings calls and presentations to investors, regarding a planned upgrade to its enterprise resource planning system and the relocation of a distribution center, as well as by omitting material facts about the same subjects necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, and on August 29, 2023, the parties submitted a joint stipulated scheduling order. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed October 19, 2023. The amendment adds additional allegations by including accounts from purported former employees and contractors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and March 1, 2023. On May 16, 2024, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with leave for Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs notified the Court of their decision to not amend their complaint, and the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on July 8, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 6, 2024, under the amended caption Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on October 21, 2024, and briefing is scheduled to be completed in or around January 2025.
On April 12, 2024, a former employee of the Company filed a putative class action in San Diego Superior Court, seeking to represent all non-exempt workers of the Company in the State of California. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. The claims predominantly relate to alleged unpaid wages (overtime) and missed meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs. There have been no substantive rulings in the case, including as to propriety of proceeding on a class wide basis, and a date for trial has not yet been set. The parties have agreed to a mediation session related to this case that is expected to occur in May 2025.
The Company is party to additional legal proceedings incidental to its business. While the outcome of these additional matters could differ from management’s expectations, the Company does not believe that the resolution of such matters is reasonably likely to have a material effect on its results of operations or financial condition.