Commitments and Contingencies | (10) Commitments and Contingencies: Litigation In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us and Smith & Wesson Corp. in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, or the District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached the earn-out and other provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with Smith & Wesson Corp.’s 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 We are a defendant in eight product liability cases and are aware of six 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 on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana 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 trial court 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. On May 23, 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. On July 8, 2019, defendants filed a Petition to Transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court. A decision has not yet been issued by the court. In May 2018, we were named in an action related to the Parkland, Florida shooting, 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 only applies 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. On December 6, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On December 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief. On December 13, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. A hearing was held on defendants’ second motion to dismiss on December 17, 2018. A decision has not yet been issued by the court. On July 31, 2019, our competitor, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against us in the United States District Court, District of New Hampshire, seeking injunctive relief and damages. Plaintiff alleges trade dress infringement, involving our Thompson/Center brand T/CR22 rifle, as well as violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act. Subsequent to July 31, 2019, in August 2019, Primus Group, LLC filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division against Smith & Wesson Corp. and other firearms manufacturers, alleging Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, racketeering enterprise, and intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff, who operates as an “entertainment venue” in Columbus, Ohio, purports to bring this action on behalf of “[a]ll persons entitled to freely attend schools, shopping locations, churches, entertainment venues, and workplaces in the United States without the intrusion of individuals armed with assault weapons.” In addition to compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the distribution and sale of “assault weapons.” On August 20, 2019, the court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants’ dispositive motions are due on September 3, 2019. The court will hold a hearing on plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction on October 15, 2019. 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 addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, 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 $18.6 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, as described below, 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. |