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 New Credit Agreement which includes a New Term Loan Facility and a New Revolving Credit Facility. See Note 5, Debt. On July 29, 2022, the New Credit Agreement was further amended by the Second Amendment. See Note 13, Subsequent Events. 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. Leases The Company has entered into non-cancellable operating leases for office, warehouse, and distribution facilities, with original lease periods expiring through 2032. Some operating leases also contain the option to renew for five-year periods at prevailing market rates at the time of renewal. In addition to minimum rent, certain of the leases require payment of real estate taxes, insurance, common area maintenance charges, and other executory costs. The Company’s lease for the Warehouse and Distribution facility in Buckeye, Arizona, commenced during the six months ended June 30, 2022 . The Company recorded operating lease right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease obligations of $21.5 million with $17.2 million in lease incentives obtained. 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 original complaint alleged 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. The lawsuit sought, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Two additional complaints making substantially similar allegations 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 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; shortly thereafter, the Western District of Washington action was voluntarily dismissed. Lead plaintiffs filed a 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, and the Court granted all defendants’ motions to dismiss the Ferreira action on February 25, 2021, allowing the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 29, 2021, and all defendants moved to dismiss. On October 25, 2021, the Court issued an order granting defendants’ motion in part and denying the motion in part. Specifically, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims related to statements regarding Funko’s projected net sales and the claims based on inventory risk warnings in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019, but denied the motion to dismiss as to claims based on an inventory risk warning in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019. On May 3, 2022, the parties agreed in principle to settle the litigation, subject to court approval. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2022. The cost of settlement will be covered by the Company’s director and officer liability insurance. Several stockholder 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. On May 9, 2022, another complaint, asserting substantially similar claims, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Smith v. Mariotti, et al . Defendants have asked the Court to consolidate Smith with the aforementioned cases. On July 20, 2022, the Court declined to consolidate Smith with the previously-pending cases, and lifted the stay of those proceedings that had been in place since 2020. On June 11, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a related derivative action, captioned Silverberg v. Mariotti, et al. , in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. That action was stayed pending resolution of Ferreira v. Funko, Inc., et al. , Case No. 2:20-cv-02319. On July 5, 2022, two purported stockholders filed an additional derivative action in the Court of Chancery, captioned Fletcher, et al. v. Mariotti . That complaint also asserts claims arising out of same issues and events as Silverberg and the derivative actions pending in the Central District of California. 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. On August 2, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the action, allowing plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint. The Company moved to dismiss, and on August 5, 2020, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed, and on November 1, 2021, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal decision in most respects, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On January 13, 2022, the Company filed a petition seeking review of the Washington State Court of Appeals’ reversal by the Washington Supreme Court. On May 4, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court denied the Company’s petition, and the case has been remanded to the Superior Court. 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 through November 2022. The cases 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 (“Securities Act”), by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC 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. On January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al. , relating to the Company’s corporate “Up-C” structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary against certain current and former officers and directors. On March 31, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the action. In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue. 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. |