| Commitments and Contingencies | (9) Commitments and Contingencies: Litigation In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, or the District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we breached the earn-out and other provisions of the asset purchase agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with our acquisition of the Gemtech business from Gemini. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment interpreting various terms of the asset purchase agreement and damages in the sum of $ 18.6 million. In May 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens . In June 2018, Gemini appealed the decision dismissing its complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit. In July 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court to perform a traditional forum non conveniens analysis. In September 2019, the parties stipulated that they do not contest that the venue is proper in the District of Idaho. In November 2019, we filed an answer to Gemini’s complaint and a counterclaim against Gemini and its stockholders at the time of the signing of the asset purchase agreement. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim of fraud in the inducement. In September 2021, Gemini filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss our counterclaim. In October 2021, we filed our opposition to Gemini’s motion. On June 27, 2022, the court denied Gemtech's motion for summary judgment. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action We are a defendant in seven product liability cases and are aware of seven other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed in August 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana, or the City, against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief, allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. In January 2018, the Lake Superior Court, County of Lake, Indiana granted defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dismissing the case in its entirety. In February 2018, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In May 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings, the trial court’s dismissal of the City’s complaint. In July 2019, defendants filed a Petition to Transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court. In November 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court denied our petition to transfer and the case was returned to the trial court. Discovery remains ongoing. In May 2018, we were named in an action related to the Parkland, Florida shooting that was filed in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida seeking a declaratory judgment that a Florida statute that provides firearm manufacturers and dealers immunity from liability when their legally manufactured and lawfully sold firearms are later used in criminal acts applies only to civil actions commenced by governmental agencies, not private litigants. In August 2018, we moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it seeks an impermissible advisory opinion. In December 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Later in December 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief and defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. In November 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, with prejudice. In June 2021, upon plaintiffs’ motion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, or the Court of Appeal, ruled that the Circuit Court’s order dismissing the case was not “final and appealable,” and ordered the Circuit Court to enter a final order of dismissal. In July 2021, plaintiffs Frederic and Jennifer Guttenberg filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Briefing in the Court of Appeal is complete. Oral argument was held on July 12, 2022. No decision has been issued to date. We are a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada that was filed in December 2019 . The action claims CAD$ 50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$ 100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto in July 2018 and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other victim suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class action. In July 2020, we filed a Notice of Motion for an order striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. In February 2021, the court granted our motion in part, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims in public nuisance and strict liability. The court declined to strike the negligent design claim, and ordered that the claim proceed to a certification motion. In March 2021, we filed a motion for leave to appeal the court’s refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In July 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay our motion for leave to appeal with the Divisional Court, on grounds that appeal is premature. In November 2021, the Divisional Court granted plaintiffs' motion, staying our motion for leave to appeal until 30 days after the decision on the balance of plaintiffs' certification motion. Plaintiffs’ certification motion, which had been scheduled for December 2022, has been extended by the court to allow plaintiffs to file further evidence in support of certification. In May 2020, we were named in an action related to the Chabad of Poway synagogue shooting that took place in April 2019. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego – Central, and asserts claims against us for product liability, unfair competition, negligence, and public nuisance. The plaintiffs allege they were present at the synagogue on the day of the incident and suffered physical and/or emotional injury. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. In September 2020, we filed a demurrer and motion to strike, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. In July 2021, the court granted our motion in part, and reversed it in part, ruling that: (1) the PLCAA barred plaintiffs’ product liability action; (2) plaintiffs did not have standing to maintain an action under the Unfair Competition Law for personal injury related damages, but giving plaintiffs leave to amend to plead an economic injury; and (3) the PLCAA did not bar plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence and public nuisance actions because plaintiffs had alleged that we violated 18 U.S.C. Section 922(b)(4), which generally prohibits the sale of fully automatic “machineguns.” In August 2021, we filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal of the state of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. In September 2021, the Court of Appeal denied our appeal. On February 22, 2022, the court consolidated the case with three related cases, in which we are not a party. On March 11, 2022, the court granted our motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law claim, without further leave to amend. Discovery is ongoing. We are a defendant in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 4, 2021, the Mexican Government filed an action against several U.S.-based firearms manufacturers and a firearms distributor, claiming defendants design, market, distribute, and sell firearms in ways they know routinely arm the drug cartels in Mexico. Plaintiff alleges, among other claims, negligence, public nuisance, design defect, unjust enrichment and restitution against all defendants and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act against us alone, and is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In November 2021, defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. On January 31, 2022, plaintiff filed its oppositions to our motions. Several amicus briefs were also filed with the court. On April 12, 2022, a hearing was held on defendants’ motions to dismiss. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any incident and any results from them or any injuries were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party. On March 9, 2022, two plaintiffs, on behalf of a proposed class of current and former employees and temporary workers who worked at our Springfield facility from November 2018 to the present, filed a claim alleging non-payment of wages and overtime in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and Massachusetts Fair Wage Act. The case has not been certified as a class action. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action. In addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, premises and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $ 75,000 to approximately $ 50.0 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We believe that our accruals for product liability cases and claims are a reasonable quantitative measure of the cost to us of product liability cases and claims. We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management. We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and a review of the merit of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore, we have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided adequate accruals for defense costs. We have recorded our liability for defense costs before consideration for reimbursement from insurance carriers. We have also recorded the amount due as reimbursement under existing policies from the insurance carriers as a receivable shown in other current assets and other assets. At this time, an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. Commitments On September 30, 2021, we announced our plan to move our headquarters and significant elements of our operations to Maryville, Tennessee in 2023, or the Relocation. In connection with the Relocation, we entered into a project agreement, or the Project Agreement, with The Industrial Development Board of Blount County and the cities of Alcoa and Maryville, Tennessee, a public, nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Tennessee, or the IDB. Pursuant to the Project Agreement, we represented to the IDB that we intend to incur, or cause to be incurred, no less than $120.0 million in aggregate capital expenditures on or before December 31, 2025, create no less than 620 new jobs, and sustain an average hourly wage of at least $25.97 at the facility. Further, pursuant to the Project Agreement, we are required to, among other things, (A) execute a facility lease and an equipment lease with the IDB; (B) cause the construction of the new facility at our sole cost and expense to commence on or before May 31, 2022; (C) incur, or cause to be incurred, aggregate capital expenditures in connection with the construction and equipping of the new facility in an aggregate amount of not less than $120.0 million on or before December 31, 2025; (D) cause the construction of the new facility to be substantially completed and for a certificate of occupancy to be issued therefore on or before December 31, 2023; (E) provide the IDB with a written report certified by one of our authorized officers, not later than January 31 of each year during the period between January 31, 2024 and January 31, 2031; and (F) make certain payments to IDB in the event that our actual capital expenditures, number of employees, or average hourly wage of such employees are less than our projections. As part of the Relocation, we intend to vacate and sublease our Missouri distribution facility. We have received indications of interest from potential third-party sublessees, and we believe that we will not incur an impairment associated with this lease. Assets associated with our assembly operations in Massachusetts and distribution operations in Missouri continue to be fully utilized, and we intend to either move those assets to Tennessee at the appropriate time or sell or sublease those assets that will not be moved. Consequently, as of July 31, 2022, we do not believe we have an impairment related to the building or assets. Subsequent to the Relocation, our Massachusetts facility will continue to remain an important part of our manufacturing activities with significant portions of the operations being unaffected by the Relocation. In addition, at or near the conclusion of our Connecticut building lease in May 2024, we intend to relocate a portion of our plastic injection molding operations to Tennessee and will evaluate selling the remaining molding operations utilized in our Connecticut operations to a third party. As of July 31, 2022, all plastic injection molding machinery and equipment was being utilized. Therefore, we could not determine an estimated range of reasonably possible losses associated with any impairment of such assets because we have not yet determined which assets may be sold. |
