| Commitments and Contingencies | 16. 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 eight 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 defendants' 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, certain plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. On January 4, 2023, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case. On February 6, 2023, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida. In March 2023, we filed a jurisdictional brief with the Supreme Court of Florida. On June 1, 2023, The Supreme Court of Florida denied the petition for review and provided that no motion for rehearing will be entertained. 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 was extended by the court to January 2024. 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 gave 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. In February 2022, the court consolidated the case with three related cases, in which we are not a party. In March 2022, the court granted our motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law claim, without further leave to amend. Discovery is ongoing. On February 28, 2023, we filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 5, 2023, plaintiffs filed their opposition to our motion for summary judgment. On May 12, 2023, we filed our reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to our motion for summary judgment. On May 19, 2023, the court denied our motion for summary judgment without prejudice, and allowed plaintiffs time for additional, limited discovery. A hearing on our renewed motion for summary judgment is set for January 12, 2024, and the trial date has been moved to August 30, 2024. We are a defendant in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In August 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. In January 2022, plaintiff filed its oppositions to our motions. Several amicus briefs were also filed with the court. In April 2022, a hearing was held on defendants’ motions to dismiss. In September 2022, the district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. In October 2022, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On March 14, 2023, plaintiff filed its appellant brief with the First Circuit. On May 11, 2023, defendants-appellees filed their responsive brief. Oral argument is scheduled for July 24, 2023. In September 2022, we were named as defendants in 12 nearly identical, separate actions related to a shooting in Highland Park, Illinois on July 4, 2022. The complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Lake County, Illinois and assert claims against us for negligence and for deceptive and unfair practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs also name as defendants the website and retailer that sold the firearm, the shooter, and the shooter’s father. The plaintiffs allege they were present at a parade at the time of the incident and suffered physical and/or emotional injury. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. We filed motions for removal of each case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In November 2022, we filed a motion to consolidate the cases for preliminary motion purposes. In December 2022, plaintiffs filed motions to remand the cases back to the state court. On January 20, 2023, we filed our opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to remand. In December 2022, the City of Buffalo, New York filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, against numerous manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of firearms. Later in December 2022, the City of Rochester, New York filed an almost identical complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, against the same defendants. The complaints allege violation of New York General Business Law, public nuisance, and deceptive business practices in violation of NY General Business Laws. In January 2023, we filed notices of removal of the cases to the US District Court. On March 24, 2023, defendants filed a motion to stay both cases pending a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the NSSF v. James case. On June 8, 2023, the court granted defendants’ motions to consolidate and to stay pending resolution of the NSSF v. James appeal. 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. In March 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. Mediation is scheduled for June 23, 2023. 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. For the fiscal years ended April 30, 2023, 2022, and 2021, we paid $ 988,000 , $ 729,000 , and $ 606,000 , respectively, in defense and administrative costs relative to product liability and municipal litigation. In addition, during fiscal 2023 and 2021, we paid an aggregate of $ 1.5 million and $ 65,000 , respectively, in settlement fees related to product liability cases. During fiscal 2022, we made no payments related to settlement fees for product liability cases. As of April 30, 2023 and 2022, we had $ 1.6 million and $ 815,000 , respectively, accrued for settlement fees, that were paid subsequent to the corresponding year end. 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. We recognize gains and expenses for changes in our product liability provisions and municipal litigation liabilities. In fiscal 2023, we recorded expense of $ 176,000 ; in fiscal 2022, we recorded expense of $ 1.2 million; and in fiscal 2021, we recorded expense of $ 388,000 . 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 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. On February 2, 2023, we entered into a design-build agreement with The Christman Company, or Christman, related to the construction of our new distribution center and corporate office headquarters in Maryville, or the Construction Contract. The Construction Contract has an effective date of September 13, 2021 and incorporates the arrangements under which we and Christman have been proceeding. Pursuant to the Construction Contract, Christman is obligated to deliver certain services, including, among others, design phase services and construction phase services, and we are obligated to pay Christman for services performed. The parties to the Construction Contract have jointly agreed that Christman will perform and complete the Work (as defined therein) on a cost-plus basis for a guaranteed maximum price of $ 114,533,853 , including contingencies. When adding the cost of machinery and equipment, we expect to spend between $ 160.0 million and $ 170.0 million through the end of fiscal 2024. The Construction Contract includes terms that are customary for contracts of this type, including with respect to indemnification and insurance. The Construction Contract lists certain contract milestones and guaranteed completion dates, and we will be entitled to liquidated damages under certain circumstances. Each party to the Construction Contract is entitled to terminate the Construction Contract under certain circumstances. As part of the Relocation, on January 31, 2023, we entered into the Assignment and Assumption Agreement and the Amended and Restated Guaranty. Assets associated with certain of our assembly operations in Massachusetts and distribution operations in Missouri continue to be fully utilized, and we intend to either move those assets to Maryville at the appropriate time or sell or sublease those assets that will not be moved. Consequently, as of April 30, 2023, we do not believe we have an impairment related to the building or assets. Subsequent to the Relocation, we expect our Springfield 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, we intend to relocate a portion of our plastic injection molding operations to Maryville and will evaluate selling the remaining molding operations utilized in our Connecticut operations to a third party. As of April 30, 2023, 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. Environmental Remediation We are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations that regulate the health and safety of our workforce, including, but not limited to, those regulations monitored by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, or OSHA, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Department of Public Health. Though not exhaustive, examples of applicable regulations include confined space safety, walking and working surfaces, machine guarding, and life safety. We are also subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations concerning, among other things, emissions in the air; discharges to land, surface, subsurface strata and water; and the generation, handling, storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes and other materials. These laws have required us to make significant expenditures of both a capital and expense nature. Several of the more significant federal laws applicable to our operations include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We have in place programs and personnel to monitor compliance with various federal, state, and local environmental regulations. In the normal course of our manufacturing operations, we are subject to governmental proceedings and orders pertaining to waste disposal, air emissions, and water discharges into the environment. We fund our environmental costs through cash flows from operations. We believe that we are in compliance with applicable environmental regulations in all material respects. We are required to remediate hazardous waste at our facilities. Currently, we own a designated site in Springfield, Massachusetts that contains two release areas, which are the focus of remediation projects as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, or MCP. The MCP provides a structured environment for the voluntary remediation of regulated releases. We may be required to remove hazardous waste or remediate the alleged effects of hazardous substances on the environment associated with past disposal practices at sites not owned by us. We have received notice that we are a potentially responsible party from the Environmental Protection Agency and/or individual states under CERCLA or a state equivalent at two sites. As of April 30, 2023, and 2022, we did no t have an open environmental reserve recorded in our consolidated balance sheet. When the available information is sufficient to estimate the amount of liability, that estimate has been used. When the information is only sufficient to establish a range of probable liability and no point within the range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. We may not have insurance coverage for our environmental remediation costs. We have not recognized any gains from probable recoveries or other gain contingencies. Based on information known to us, we do not expect current environmental regulations or environmental proceedings and claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, it is not possible to predict with certainty the impact on us of future environmental compliance requirements or the cost of resolving of future environmental health and safety proceedings and claims, in part because the scope of the remedies that may be required is not certain, liability under federal environmental laws is joint and several in nature, and environmental laws and regulations are subject to modification and changes in interpretation. There can be no assurance that additional or changing environmental regulation will not become more burdensome in the future and that any such development would not have a material adverse effect on our company. Contracts Employment Agreements — We have employment, severance, and change of control agreements with certain employees. |
