Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Licensing and Similar Agreements and Other Purchasing Obligations

In the normal course of business, Mattel enters into contractual arrangements to obtain and protect Mattel’s right to create and market certain products. These arrangements include royalty payments pursuant to licensing agreements that routinely contain provisions for guarantees or minimum expenditures during the term of the contract. Mattel also enters into contractual arrangements for commitments of future purchases of goods and services to ensure availability and timely delivery. Current and future commitments for guaranteed payments reflect Mattel’s focus on expanding its product lines through alliances with businesses in other industries.

Licensing and similar agreements in effect at December 31, 2020 contain provisions for future minimum payments as shown in the following table:


	Licensing and Similar Agreements
	(In thousands)
2021	$	52,756
2022	43,056
2023	35,682
2024	1,259
2025	143
Thereafter	—
	$	132,896

Royalty expense for 2020, 2019, and 2018 was $158.5 million, $220.2 million, and $224.0 million, respectively.

The following table shows the future minimum obligations for purchases of inventory, services, and other items as of December 31, 2020:


	Other Purchase Obligations
	(In thousands)
2021	$	244,175
2022	48,212
2023	29,704
2024	—
2025	—
Thereafter	—
	$	322,091

Insurance

Mattel has a wholly-owned subsidiary, Far West Insurance Company, Ltd. ("Far West"), that was established to insure Mattel’s workers’ compensation, general, automobile, product liability, and property risks. For the year ended December 31, 2020, Far West insured the first $1.0 million per occurrence for workers’ compensation risks, the first $0.5 million for general and automobile liability risks, the first $2.0 million per occurrence for product liability risks for the month ending January 31, 2020 and the first $5.0 million per occurrence for product liability risks thereafter, and up to $1.0 million per occurrence for property risks. Various insurance companies that have an "A" or better AM Best rating at the time the policies are purchased reinsured Mattel’s risk in excess of the amounts insured by Far West. Mattel’s liability for reported and incurred but not reported workers' compensation, general, automobile, product liability, and property claims at December 31, 2020 and 2019 totaled $12.9 million and $12.0 million, respectively, and is primarily included in other noncurrent liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. Loss reserves are accrued based on Mattel’s estimate of the aggregate liability for claims incurred.

Litigation

Litigation Related to Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda.

Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda. (formerly known as Trebbor Informática Ltda.) was a customer of Mattel's subsidiary Mattel do Brasil Ltda. when a commercial dispute arose between Yellowstone and Mattel do Brasil regarding the supply of product and related payment terms. As a consequence of the dispute, in April 1999, Yellowstone filed a declarative action against Mattel do Brasil before the 15th Civil Court of Curitiba – State of Parana (the "Trial Court"), requesting the annulment of its security bonds and promissory notes given to Mattel do Brasil as well as requesting the Trial Court to find Mattel do Brasil liable for damages incurred as a result of Mattel do Brasil’s alleged abrupt and unreasonable breach of an oral exclusive distribution agreement between the parties relating to the supply and sale of toys in Brazil. Yellowstone's complaint sought alleged loss of profits of approximately $1 million, plus an unspecified amount of damages consisting of: (i) compensation for all investments made by Yellowstone to develop Mattel do Brasil's business; (ii) reimbursement of the amounts paid by Yellowstone to terminate labor and civil contracts in connection with the business; (iii) compensation for alleged unfair competition and for the goodwill of trade; and (iv) compensation for non-pecuniary damages.

Mattel do Brasil filed its defenses to these claims and simultaneously presented a counterclaim for unpaid accounts receivable for goods supplied to Yellowstone in the approximate amount of $4 million.

During the evidentiary phase a first accounting report was submitted by a court-appointed expert. Such report stated that Yellowstone had invested approximately $3 million in its business. Additionally, the court-appointed expert calculated a loss of profits compensation of approximately $1 million. Mattel do Brasil challenged the report since it was not made based on the official accounting documents of Yellowstone and since the report calculated damages based only on documents unilaterally submitted by Yellowstone.

The Trial Court accepted the challenge and ruled that a second accounting examination should take place in the lawsuit. Yellowstone appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of the State of Parana (the "Appeals Court"), but it was upheld by the Appeals Court.

The second court-appointed expert’s report submitted at trial did not assign a value to any of Yellowstone’s claims and found no evidence of causation between Mattel do Brasil's actions and such claims.

In January 2010, the Trial Court ruled in favor of Mattel do Brasil and denied all of Yellowstone’s claims based primarily on the lack of any causal connection between the acts of Mattel do Brasil and Yellowstone’s alleged damages. Additionally, the Trial Court upheld Mattel do Brasil's counterclaim and ordered Yellowstone to pay Mattel do Brasil approximately $4 million. The likelihood of Mattel do Brasil recovering this amount was uncertain due to the fact that Yellowstone was declared insolvent and filed for bankruptcy protection. In February 2010, Yellowstone filed a motion seeking clarification of the decision which was denied.

In September 2010, Yellowstone filed a further appeal with the Appeals Court. Under Brazilian law, the appeal was de novo and Yellowstone restated all of the arguments it made at the Trial Court level. Yellowstone did not provide any additional information supporting its unspecified alleged damages. The Appeals Court held hearings on the appeal in March and April 2013. On July 26, 2013, the Appeals Court awarded Yellowstone approximately $17 million in damages, plus attorney's fees, as adjusted for inflation and interest. The Appeals Court also awarded Mattel do Brasil approximately $7.5 million on its counterclaim, as adjusted for inflation. On August 2, 2013, Mattel do Brasil filed a motion with the Appeals Court for clarification since the written decision contained clear errors in terms of amounts awarded and interest and inflation adjustments. Mattel do Brasil's motion also asked the Appeals Court to decide whether Yellowstone’s award could be offset by the counterclaim award, despite Yellowstone's status as a bankrupt entity. Yellowstone also filed a motion for clarification on August 5, 2013. A decision on the clarification motions was rendered on November 11, 2014, and the Appeals Court accepted partially the arguments raised by Mattel do Brasil. As a result, the Appeals Court awarded Yellowstone approximately $14.5 million in damages, as adjusted for inflation and interest, plus attorney's fees. The Appeals Court also awarded Mattel do Brasil approximately $7.5 million on its counterclaim, as adjusted for inflation. The decision also recognized the existence of legal rules that support Mattel do Brasil's right to offset its counterclaim award of approximately $7.5 million. Mattel do Brasil filed a new motion for clarification with the Appeals Court on January 21, 2015, due to the incorrect statement made by the reporting judge of the Appeals Court, that the court-appointed expert analyzed the "accounting documents" of Yellowstone. On April 26, 2015, a decision on the motion for clarification was rendered. The Appeals Court ruled that the motion for clarification was denied and imposed a fine on Mattel do Brasil equal to 1% of the value of the claims made for the delay caused by the motion. On July 3, 2015, Mattel do Brasil filed a special appeal to the Superior Court of Justice based upon both procedural and substantive grounds. This special appeal sought to reverse the Appeals Court's decision of July 26, 2013, and to reverse the fine as inappropriate under the law. This special appeal was submitted to the Appeals Court.

Yellowstone also filed a special appeal with the Appeals Court in February 2015, which was made available to Mattel do Brasil on October 7, 2015. Yellowstone's special appeal sought to reverse the Appeals Court decision with respect to: (a) the limitation on Yellowstone's loss of profits claim to the amount requested in the complaint, instead of the amount contained in the first court-appointed experts report, and (b) the award of damages to Mattel do Brasil on the counterclaim, since the specific amount was not requested in Mattel do Brasil's counterclaim brief.

On October 19, 2015, Mattel do Brasil filed its answer to the special appeal filed by Yellowstone and Yellowstone filed its answer to the special appeal filed by Mattel do Brasil. On April 4, 2016, the Appeals Court rendered a decision denying the admissibility of Mattel's and Yellowstone's special appeals. On May 11, 2016, both Mattel and Yellowstone filed interlocutory appeals.

On August 31, 2017, the reporting justice for the Appeals Court denied Yellowstone’s interlocutory appeal. As to Mattel, the reporting justice reversed the fine referenced above that had been previously imposed on Mattel for filing a motion for clarification. However, the reporting justice rejected Mattel’s arguments on the merits of Yellowstone’s damages claims. On September 22, 2017, Mattel filed a further appeal to the full panel of five appellate justices to challenge the merits of Yellowstone's damages claims. Yellowstone did not file a further appeal.

In April 2018, Mattel do Brasil entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter, but the settlement was later rejected by the courts, subject to a pending appeal by Mattel.

On October 2, 2018, the Appeals Court rejected Mattel's merits appeal, and affirmed the prior rulings in favor of Yellowstone. In October 2019, Mattel reached an agreement with Yellowstone's former counsel regarding payment of the attorney's fees portion of the judgment. In November 2019, Yellowstone initiated an action to enforce its judgment against Mattel, but did not account for an offset for Mattel's counterclaim. On January 27, 2020, Mattel obtained an injunction, staying Yellowstone's enforcement action pending resolution of Mattel's appeal to enforce the parties' April 2018 settlement. As of December 31, 2020, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to the Yellowstone matter and has accrued a reserve, which was not material.

Litigation Related to the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper

A number of putative class action lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper"). In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight sleep for infants. The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 15 statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep. The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the federal courts’ Multi-District Litigation program.

Forty-eight additional lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper caused the fatalities of or injuries to fifty-two children. Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional plaintiffs who are threatening to assert similar claims.

In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Kumar v. Bradley, et al., filed July 7, 2020) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment related to the development, marketing, and sale of the Sleeper. The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel’s current and former officers and directors. In August 2020, the derivative action was stayed pending further developments in the class action lawsuits.

The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Litigation and Investigations Related to Whistleblower Letter

In December 2019 and January 2020, two stockholders filed separate complaints styled as class actions against Mattel, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The complaints rely on the results of an investigation announced by Mattel in October 2019 regarding allegations in a whistleblower letter and claim that Mattel misled the market in several of its financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017. The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices.

In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Moher v. Kreiz, et al., filed April 9, 2020) making allegations that are substantially identical to, or are based upon, the allegations of the class action lawsuits. The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel’s current and former officers and directors, Mattel, Inc., and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Subsequently, a nearly identical derivative action was filed by a different stockholder against the same defendants. The second lawsuit is styled as an amended complaint and replaces a complaint making unrelated allegations in a previously filed lawsuit already pending in Delaware federal court (Lombardi v. Kreiz, et al., amended complaint filed April 16, 2020). In May 2020, the derivative actions were consolidated and stayed pending further developments in the class action lawsuits.

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Mattel has also received subpoenas from the SEC, seeking documents related to the whistleblower letter and subsequent investigation, and is responding to those subpoenas. Mattel is also responding to requests from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") related to this matter. Mattel cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of potential legal action by the SEC or SDNY, if any, or whether any such action could have a material impact on Mattel's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.