Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Actions Filed in Federal Court

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Flora Complaint”); (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Lynn Complaint”); and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Spadola Complaint” and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the “Securities Complaints”). On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the “Consolidated Securities Action”), and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated

Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017 (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint named as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers (collectively, “Defendants”) and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 3, 2017 which the Court granted on March 29, 2019, dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2019 (the “Second Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint again named as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the Amended Complaint, including materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 20, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August 5, 2019, and Defendants submitted a reply on September 3, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2020 indicating their intent to appeal the Court’s decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Stockholder Derivative Complaints Filed in State Court

On September 16, 2016, a stockholder derivative complaint, Paperny v. Heyer, et al. (the “Paperny Complaint”), was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, lack of oversight and corporate waste.  On December 2, 2016 and December 29, 2016, two additional stockholder derivative complaints were filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the former Board of Directors and certain former officers under the captions Scarola v. Simon (the “Scarola Complaint”) and Shakir v. Simon (the “Shakir Complaint” and, together with the Paperny Complaint and the Scarola Complaint, the “Derivative Complaints”), respectively. Both the Scarola Complaint and the Shakir Complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty, lack of oversight and unjust enrichment. On February 16, 2017, the parties for the Derivative Complaints entered into a stipulation consolidating the matters under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”) in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County, ordering the Shakir Complaint as the operative complaint. On November 2, 2017, the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action. Co-Lead Plaintiffs requested leave to file an amended consolidated complaint, and on January 14, 2019, the Court partially lifted the stay, ordering Co-Lead Plaintiffs to file their amended complaint by March 7, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Verified Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint on March 7, 2019. The Court continued the stay pending a decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Consolidated Securities Action (referenced above). After the Court in the Consolidated Securities Action dismissed the Amended Complaint, the Court in the Consolidated Derivative Action ordered Co-Lead Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint no later than July 8, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint on July 8, 2019 (the “Second Amended Derivative Complaint”). Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Derivative Complaint on August 7, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and Defendants submitted a reply on September 20, 2019. This motion is fully briefed, and the parties await a decision.

Additional Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaints Filed in Federal Court

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. (the “Silva Complaint”) and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the “Barnes Complaint”), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company. The complaint alleged that the Company’s former directors and certain former officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleged that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the “Merenstein Complaint”).

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties' stipulation to consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action”) and to appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the “Oliver Complaint”), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants’ time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after a decision was rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, described above.

On March 29, 2019, the Court in the Consolidated Securities Action granted Defendants’ motion, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 6, 2019. The parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants’ time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through 30 days after a decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action.

On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the stay, Defendants in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action had until May 6, 2020 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint in this matter. On April 28, 2020, the Court entered an order extending Defendants’ time to respond to June 9, 2020.

Other

In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is and may be a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, the Company believes the probable final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position, cash flows or liquidity.