Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies License Agreements The Company enters into license agreements with various licensors of copyrighted and trademarked characters and design in connection with the products that it sells. The agreements generally require royalty payments based on product sales and in some cases may require minimum royalty and other related commitments. Employment Agreements The Company has employment agreements with certain officers. The agreements include, among other things, an annual bonus based on certain performance metrics of the Company, as defined by the board of directors, and up to one year’s severance pay beyond termination date. Debt The Company has entered into a Credit Agreement which includes a Term Loan Facility and a Revolving Credit Facility. See Note 5, Debt. Tax Receivable Agreement The Company is party to the Tax Receivable Agreement with FAH, LLC and each of the Continuing Equity Owners that provides for the payment by the Company to the Continuing Equity Owners under certain circumstances. See Note 6, Liabilities under Tax Receivable Agreement. Legal Contingencies The Company is involved in claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages, which are not covered by insurance. For certain pending matters, accruals have not been established because such matters have not progressed sufficiently through discovery, and/or development of important factual information and legal information is insufficient to enable the Company to estimate a range of possible loss, if any. An adverse determination in one or more of these pending matters could have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is, and may in the future become, subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in or outside the ordinary course of business. For example, on March 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, entitled Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly materially misleading statements in its earnings announcement and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019, as well as by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Two additional complaints making substantially similar allegations— Nahas v. Funko, Inc. et al. and Dachev v. Funko, Inc. et al. —were filed April 3, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and April 9, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, respectively. On June 25, 2020, the Dachev action was voluntarily dismissed. On June 11, 2020, the Central District of California actions were consolidated for all purposes into one action under the Ferreira caption, and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Lead plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on July 31, 2020, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as well as entities affiliated with ACON Funko Investors, L.L.C. (“ACON”). The consolidated complaint added Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims based on the Company’s earnings announcement and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019, as well as claims under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on October 2, 2020, and briefing on the motions to dismiss concluded on January 29, 2021. On February 25, 2021, the Court granted all defendants’ motions to dismiss the Ferreira action, allowing the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 29, 2021, and the Company expects briefing on the motions to dismiss that complaint to conclude in July 2021. Five shareholder derivative actions based on the earnings announcement and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019 have been brought on behalf of the Company against certain of its directors and officers. Specifically, on April 23, June 5, and June 10, 2020, the actions captioned Cassella v. Mariotti et al. , Evans v. Mariotti et al. , and Igelido v. Mariotti et al. , respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 6, 2020, these three actions were consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc. Derivative Litigation , and on August 13, 2020, the consolidated action was stayed pending final resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Ferreira action. Additionally, on July 14 and July 31, 2020, the actions captioned Rubin v. Mariotti et al. and Fletcher v. Mariotti et al. , respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. These two actions were consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation on September 8, 2020. On October 30, 2020, the consolidated action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaints filed in the shareholder derivative actions have alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, insider trading, and violations of the Exchange Act. The actions seek, among other things, payment of damages to the Company and to disgorge the directors and officers from all profits and benefits they obtained due to their alleged wrongful conduct. Additionally, between November 16, 2017 and June 12, 2018, seven purported stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental Capital, LLC and Funko International, LLC (collectively, “Fundamental”), the underwriters of its IPO, and certain other defendants. On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation . On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental, and certain other defendants. On October 1, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the action. The motion was fully briefed as of November 30, 2018, and oral argument on the motion was held on May 3, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the action, allowing plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. The Court found, inter alia, that “Funko’s statements regarding its financial disclosures were not materially false or misleading” and that “plaintiffs have not shown that Funko’s ‘opinion statements’ were false or that such statements were not simply corporate optimism or puffery.” On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint. The Company moved to dismiss that complaint on December 5, 2019. The motion was fully briefed as of March 17, 2020, and oral argument on the motion was held on May 15, 2020. On August 5, 2020, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Washington Court of Appeals on September 4, 2020 and their opening brief on February 12, 2021. The Company expects briefing on the appeal to conclude mid-2021. On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case. On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the previously named defendants. The parties to the federal action, now captioned Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al. , have agreed to a stay of that action pending developments in the state case. The complaints in Washington state court and Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al. allege that the Company violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company’s IPO and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory statutory damages and rescissory damages in account of the consideration paid for the Company’s Class A common stock by the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Finally, on December 8, 2020 and February 3, 2021, two purported stockholders of the Company filed complaints against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware to compel inspection of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Those actions are captioned Silverberg v. Funko, Inc . and De La Combe v. Funko, Inc . On April 21, 2021, the De La Combe action was voluntarily dismissed. The Silverberg action remains pending. The Company is party to additional legal proceedings incidental to its business. While the outcome of these additional matters could differ from management’s expectations, the Company does not believe that the resolution of such matters is reasonably likely to have a material effect on its results of operations or financial condition. |