COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

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 (the "District Court") 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 District 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 District 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. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 6, 2022, the District Court issued an order directing the parties to submit position papers outlining their views regarding: (a) the scope of the Court's reconsideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; and (b) the appropriate procedure the Court should follow in light of the Second Circuit's opinion. On April 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order setting the schedule for, and determining the scope of, supplemental briefing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The parties submitted supplemental briefing between May 12, 2022 and June 23, 2022. In June 2022, the District Court referred Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint to a United States Magistrate Judge (the “Magistrate Judge”) for a Report and Recommendation. On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed Objections to Magistrate Judge’s November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2022, and Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on January 9, 2023. The Parties await a decision from the District Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

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 District Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the “Merenstein Complaint”).

On August 10, 2017, the District 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 District 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 District 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 District 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 District 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 District Court that Plaintiffs were evaluating the rejection of the demand, sought certain additional information and were assessing next steps, and requested that the District Court extend the stay for an additional 30 days, to on or around December 7, 2020. The Parties then filed a number of additional joint status reports, requesting that the District Court continue the stay of applicable deadlines through December 30, 2021. In light of the Second Circuit vacating the District Court’s judgment in the Consolidated Securities Action referenced above and remanding the case for further proceedings, the Parties submitted a joint status report on December 29, 2021 requesting that the District Court continue the temporary stay pending the District Court’s reconsideration of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. The District Court has extended the temporary stay through April 30, 2023.

Baby Food Litigation

Since February 2021, the Company has been named in numerous consumer class actions 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. Those actions have now been transferred and consolidated as a single lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-678 (the "Consolidated Proceeding"), which generally alleges that the Company violated various state consumer protection laws and asserts other state and common law warranty and unjust enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the presence of these metals, arguing that consumers would have either not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the Company made adequate disclosures. The Court appointed interim class counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Proceeding, and Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on March 18, 2022. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on November 7, 2022. The plaintiffs filed their opposition on December 22, 2022, and the Company filed its reply brief on January 20, 2023. One consumer class action is pending in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, which the court has stayed in deference to the Consolidated Proceeding. 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. The Company has been named in one civil government enforcement action, State of New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Nurture, Inc., et al., which was filed by the New Mexico Attorney General against the Company and several other manufacturers based on the alleged presence of heavy metals in their baby food products. The Company and several other manufacturers moved to dismiss the New Mexico Attorney General’s lawsuit, which motion the Court denied. The Company filed its answer to the New Mexico Attorney General’s amended complaint on April 23, 2022. The Company denies the New

Mexico Attorney General’s allegations and maintains that its baby foods are safe, properly labeled, and compliant with New Mexico law.

In addition to the consumer class actions discussed above, the Company is currently named in six 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. These lawsuits generally allege injuries related to neurological development disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

•In the matter, Palmquist et al. v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., pending in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, the trial proceedings commenced on February 6, 2023.

•In the matter, NC v. The Hain Celestial Group, et al., pending in Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, the Court has set a trial date of October 4, 2023. The parties are currently engaging in discovery. Fact discovery is set to close on March 24, 2023, and expert discovery is set to close on May 5, 2023.

•There are currently two Nevada state court cases pending in Clark County District Court. The cases, Benitez v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Inc., et al. and Buenaventura v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Inc., et al., have been consolidated for the purposes of discovery only. In Benitez, the Court issued a scheduling order in September 2022. Pursuant to this Order, discovery will close on March 7, 2024 and the case is set the case for trial starting on July 29, 2024. There has been no further activity in the Buenaventura case.

•In Watkins v. Plum, PBC, et al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Court has set the case for trial beginning on August 28, 2023. The parties have started to engage in discovery.

•On January 9, 2023, Plaintiffs in P.A. et al. v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. filed their First Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai’i. Defendants have not yet responded to this Complaint.

The Company denies that its Products led to any of the alleged injuries and will defend these cases vigorously. That said, additional lawsuits may be filed against the Company in the future, asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. Such lawsuits may be resolved in a manner adverse to us, and we may incur substantial costs or damages not covered by our insurance, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and business.

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.

With respect to all litigation and related matters, the Company records a liability when the Company believes it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. As of the end of the period covered by this report, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of the matters disclosed in this note. It is possible that some matters could require the Company to pay damages, incur other costs or establish accruals in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated as of the end of the period covered by this report.