COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

At June 30, 2021, we did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in Item 303(a)(4) of Regulation S-K that have had, or are likely to have, a material current or future effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Legal Proceedings

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 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. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 18, 2020. Defendants filed their opposition brief on November 17, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on December 8, 2020. Accordingly, Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ appeal is fully briefed. Oral argument is scheduled for September 27, 2021.

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. This deadline was extended, and Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action Complaint on June 23, 2020, with Plaintiffs’ opposition due August 7, 2020.

On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand on the current Board containing overlapping factual allegations to those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. On August 10, 2020, the Court vacated the briefing schedule on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss in order to give the Board of Directors time to consider the demand. On each of September 8 and October 8, 2020, the Court extended its stay of any applicable deadlines for 30 days to give the Board of Directors additional time to complete its evaluation of the demand. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board of Directors had finished investigating and resolved, among other things, that the demand should be rejected. On November 6, 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendants notified the Court that Plaintiffs were evaluating the rejection of the demand, sought certain additional information and were assessing next steps, and requested that the Court extend the stay for an additional 30 days, to on or around December 7, 2020. Since that time, Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed a number of joint status reports, requesting that the Court stay applicable deadlines to allow for the production of certain materials by the Board of Directors for review by Plaintiffs. The current stay ordered by the Court is set to expire on October 29, 2021.

Baby Food Litigation

Since February 2021, a large number of consumer class actions have been brought against the Company alleging that the Company’s Earth’s Best baby food products (the “Products”) contain unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally-occurring heavy metals, namely lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. There are currently 29 active lawsuits, which generally allege that the Company violated various state consumer protection laws and make other state and common law warranty and unjust enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the presence of these metals and that consumers would have allegedly either not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the Company made adequate disclosures. These putative class actions seek to certify a nationwide class of consumers as well as various state subclasses. One of the consumer class actions (Lauren Smith, et. al. v. Plum PBC, et. al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California also alleges civil RICO claims that the Company conspired with other baby food manufacturers to conceal the presence of these heavy metals in our respective products. These actions have been filed against all of the major baby food manufacturers in federal courts across the country. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) declined a request to centralize all of the consumer class action lawsuits against all of the baby food manufacturers into a single multidistrict proceeding, and the vast majority of cases against the Company have now been transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-678. One consumer class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, and another is pending in the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County. The Company has moved to stay or transfer these two cases to the consolidated proceeding in the Eastern District of New York and those motions are pending. The Company denies the allegations in these lawsuits and contends that its baby foods are safe and properly labeled.

The claims raised in these lawsuits were brought in the wake of a highly publicized report issued by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy on Oversight and Reform, dated February 4, 2021 (the “House Report”), addressing the presence of heavy metals in baby foods made by certain manufacturers, including the Company. Since the publishing of the House Report, the Company has also received information requests with respect to the advertising and quality of its baby foods from certain governmental authorities, as such authorities investigate the claims made in the House Report. The Company is fully cooperating with these requests and is providing documents and other requested information.

In addition to the consumer class actions discussed above, the Company is currently named in four lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging some form of personal injury from the ingestion of the Company’s Products, purportedly due to unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals. Two of these lawsuits name multiple plaintiffs alleging claims of physical injuries. These lawsuits generally allege injuries related to neurological development disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Company denies that its Products led to any of these injuries and will defend the cases vigorously.

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.