| 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 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 June 2022, the District Court denied Gemini's motion for summary judgment. Gemini filed a second motion for summary judgment, and in August 2023, the District Court again denied Gemini’s motion. In November 2023, we entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs on the indemnity a nd counterclaims. On the same day, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave, seeking to file a second amended complaint. On January 31, 2024, the District Court allowed plaintiffs’ amended allegations of fraud, and denied without prejudice their motion to add punitive damages. On February 9, 2024, the District Court set a trial date for January 6, 2025. On August 7, 2024, the District Court issued a 45-day stay of the case and vacated the January 6, 2025 trial date. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action. We are a defendant in three 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 is ongoing. On March 15, 2024, IC 34-12-3.5 was signed into law. This law purported to prohibit political subdivisions in Indiana from bringing certain legal actions against certain firearm industry members and to apply to actions or suits filed before, after, or on August 27, 1999. On March 18, 2024, defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the new law. On May 17, 2024, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. On August 12, 2024, the trial court denied defendants’ joint motion for judgment on the pleadings. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint are without merit and intend to aggressively defend this action. 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 sought 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. A hearing on plaintiffs’ certification motion was held in January 2024. On March 5, 2024, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Three appeals have been filed, all of which will be heard together in the Court of Appeal for Ontario: (1) our appeal from the dismissal of our motion to strike the negligent design claim; (2) the pl aintiffs’ appeal from the order striking out their public nuisance and strict liability claims; and, (3) the plaintiffs’ appeal from the order dismissing their certification motion. On August 6, 2024, we filed our motion regarding our appeal from the dismissal of our motion to strike the negligent design claim and plaintiffs filed their motion regarding their appeal from the order striking out their public nuisance and strict liability claims and their appeal from the order dismissing their certification motion. 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 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 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 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 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 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 was held on August 16, 2024. Trial is scheduled for January 24, 2025. 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 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 January 22, 2024, the First Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case. On April 18, 2024, defendants filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. A conference is scheduled before the U.S. Supreme Court on September 30, 2024. On August 7, 2024, the district court dismissed the case against six of the eight defendants in the suit excluding us based on personal jurisdiction grounds. The district court has scheduled a status conference for October 2, 2024. 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 deceptive and unfair practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. 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. In September 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand. In October 2023, we filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In March 2024, three new suits were filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. On April 8, 2024, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the remand decision. On May 10, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of removal. On May 17, 2024, we filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. No decision has been issued to date. In June and July 2024, the district court remanded the 12 separate actions to state court, with some plaintiffs amending their complaints to remove references to violations of federal law and asserting an additional claim against us for deceptive and unfair practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. We were also named in 13 additional separate cases against us in the same state court during the same time period, largely raising similar allegations against us as in the initial and amended complaints. 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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. 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 parties have reached a settlement agreement, which was preliminarily approved by the court on March 15, 2024. A hearing seeking final approval of the settlement is scheduled for September 17, 2024. 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 were also involved in a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit filed on December 5, 2023 in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The action was brought by plaintiffs seeking to act on our behalf against our directors and certain of our executive officers. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duties by knowingly allowing us to become exposed to significant liability for intentionally violating federal, state, and local laws through our manufacturing, marketing, and sale of “AR-15 style rifles." The derivative plaintiffs sought damages on our behalf from the individual defendants, as well as reforms and improvements to our compliance procedures and governance policies. On March 19, 2024, the court granted our motion to require security pursuant to Nevada law. On May 6, 2024, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ action without prejudice for failing to post a bond pursuant to the court’s order. On June 28, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to retax costs, arguing that we are not entitled to costs based on the court’s order of dismissal. On July 9, 2024, we filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 10 and 11, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the order of dismissal without prejudice and case appeal statement, respectively. On July 25, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of posting of bond on appeal. On August 9, 2024, we filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to retax costs. 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. 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. On February 2, 2023, we entered into a design-build agreement with The Christman Company, or Christman, related to the construction of our Maryville facility, 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 agreed that Christman will perform and complete the Work (as defined therein) on a cost-plus basis for a guaranteed maximum price of $ 114.5 million, 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 2025. Through July 31, 2024, we had incurred $ 157.0 million of capital expenditures related to the Relocation. 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. During the quarter ended July 31, 2023, we determined that we would have no use for certain distribution equipment in our Missouri Distribution Center and could not fully recover the net book value of such equipment. Therefore, we recorded an impairment of $ 2.0 million during that quarter. In connection with the Assignment and Assumption Agreement, we vacated the Missouri Distribution Center effective January 1, 2024 and sold assets we could no longer utilize to AOUT at their remaining net book value of $ 2.9 million, relocating all remaining assets to our Maryville facility. In addition, we relocated a portion of our plastic injection molding operations to the Maryville facility. As of July 31, 2024, the plastic injection molding machinery and equipment was being utilized in our Deep River facility, had been relocated to the Maryville facility, or had been disposed. We do not believe there are any indications of impairment relating to assets being utilized at the Deep River facility. |
