CONTINGENCIES | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
CONTINGENCIES | ' |
CONTINGENCIES |
We are a defendant in various proceedings involving employment, antitrust, intellectual property, environmental, taxation and other laws. When it is probable, in management’s judgment, that we may incur monetary damages or other costs resulting from these proceedings or other claims, and we can reasonably estimate the amounts, we record appropriate liabilities in the financial statements and make charges against earnings. For all periods presented, we have recorded no material charges against earnings other than as indicated below, and the total liabilities recorded are not material to our financial position. |
|
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit |
On August 10, 2010, a shareholder derivative suit was filed by the New England Carpenters Pension Fund in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri as Case No. 10AO-CC284. The suit was purportedly brought on our behalf, naming us as a nominal defendant, and certain current and former officers and directors as individual defendants including David S. Haffner, Karl G. Glassman, Matthew C. Flanigan, Ernest C. Jett, Harry M. Cornell, Jr., Felix E. Wright, Robert Ted Enloe, III, Richard T. Fisher, Judy C. Odom, Maurice E. Purnell, Jr., Ralph W. Clark and Michael A. Glauber. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the individual defendants: breached their fiduciary duties; backdated and received backdated stock options violating our stock plans; caused or allowed us to issue false and misleading financial statements and proxy statements; sold our stock while possessing material non-public information; committed gross mismanagement; wasted corporate assets; committed fraud; violated the Missouri Securities Act; and were unjustly enriched. |
The plaintiff was seeking, among other things: unspecified monetary damages against the individual defendants; certain equitable and other relief relating to the profits from the alleged improper conduct; the adoption of certain corporate governance proposals; the imposition of a constructive trust over the defendants’ stock options and proceeds; punitive damages; the rescission of certain unexercised options; and the reimbursement of litigation costs. The plaintiff was not seeking monetary relief from us. We have director and officer liability insurance in force subject to customary limits and exclusions. |
|
We and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the suit in late October 2010, asserting: the plaintiff failed to make demand on our Board and shareholders as required by Missouri law, and this failure to make demand should not be excused; the dismissal of the substantially similar suit in 2009 precludes the 2010 suit; the plaintiff is not a representative shareholder; the suit was based on a statistical analysis of stock option grants and our stock prices that we believe was flawed; the plaintiff failed to state a substantive claim; the common law fraud claim was not pled with sufficient particularity; and the statute of limitations has expired on the fraud claim and all the alleged challenged grants except the December 30, 2005 grant. As to this grant, the motions to dismiss advised the Court that it was made under our Deferred Compensation Program, which (i) provided that options would be dated on the last business day of December, and (ii) was filed with the SEC on December 2, 2005 setting out the pricing mechanism well before the grant date. On April 6, 2011, the suit was dismissed without prejudice. |
On May 12, 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. On November 28, 2012, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal finding that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded it would be futile |
to make demand on the Board and shareholders. The Court of Appeals did not address the other grounds that had been raised in the motions to dismiss. We filed a request for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court on December 12, 2012, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. On January 3, 2013, we filed a transfer petition to the Missouri Supreme Court. On February 26, 2013, the Missouri Supreme Court denied our request. The case was sent back to Jasper County, Missouri for further proceedings. At the parties' request, on June 4, 2013, the circuit court stayed all proceedings to allow the parties to mediate the dispute. |
Settlement of the Shareholder Derivative Case. On May 12, 2014, the defendants, denying all wrongdoing and liability, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement whereby the Company would pay $2.9 for plaintiff counsel fees and costs and agree to certain Corporate Governance Measures in exchange for a complete release of all claims against all defendants. The Corporate Governance Measures include the continued maintenance, for a minimum of three years, of: (i) annual stock option grant dates to be pre-determined and fixed; (ii) plan documents to define the stock option exercise price, the grant date and the fair market value of the stock or the formula for determining such amount; (iii) the exercise price for each option to be 100% of the closing price on the grant date or the average closing market price on a range of dates; (iv) grant dates to be no earlier than the date the Board or Compensation Committee (or delegated committee for non-Section 16 officers) makes the determination granting such options; (v) all plans to comply with legal disclosure and accounting requirements; (vi) effective monitoring mechanisms for the timely and accurate filing of SEC Forms 3, 4 and 5; (vii) a majority of independent directors; (viii) the grants to Section 16 officers to be made at Board or Compensation Committee meetings; (ix) written documentation identifying all grantees, amounts and prices of stock options granted to be complete and final on the grant date and signed by the CEO or CLO; (x) training programs that address executive compensation, governance, and the requirements of our stock option plans; (xi) an annual message by the CEO to salaried employees regarding the importance of the compliance culture; (xii) annual reports to the Board or Audit Committee by the CLO or General Counsel on the status of corporate compliance; (xiii) the Company whistle blower program in compliance with law; and (xiv) an internal Audit Department approved by the Audit Committee with a Vice President of Internal Audit with adequate credentials and a direct reporting relationship to the Audit Committee. |
The Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation of Settlement on June 4, 2014. Upon the Court’s preliminary approval the Company (i) filed the notice of settlement on Form 8-K on June 10, 2014; (ii) posted the notice on the Company’s website on the same date; and (iii) published the notice in the Investor’s Business Daily on June 12, 2014. A hearing was held on September 4, 2014 at which time the Court approved the final Settlement. In the third quarter of 2014, we paid $.7 in attorney's fees while $2.2 was paid by our insurance carrier. |
Antitrust Lawsuits |
Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of our carpet underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws. |
U.S. Direct Purchaser Class Action Cases. We have been named as a defendant in three pending direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products. The direct purchaser class action cases were all filed in or were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. |
|
The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of direct purchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief |
|
|
against future violations. On April 15 and May 6, 2011, we filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the direct purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held January 15, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct purchaser class. We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014. The petition to appeal was denied on September 29, 2014. The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing. |
Settlement of U.S. Direct Purchaser Class Action Cases. We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. direct purchaser class action cases on August 14, 2014, by agreeing to pay an aggregate amount of $39.8, inclusive of plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but settled the direct purchaser class cases to avoid the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of the litigation. The settlement is subject to Court approval. We recorded a $39.8 (pre-tax) accrual for the settlement in the third quarter 2014. Since the payment would be partially attributable to our former Prime Foam Products business, which was sold in the first quarter of 2007, $8.3 is reflected in discontinued operations. |
U.S. Indirect Purchaser Class Action Cases. We were named as a defendant (but not served with process) in an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011 and subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that proceeds under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers, bring damages claims under various states’ antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May 6, 2011, we filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery is nearing completion in the indirect purchaser class case. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held January 15, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the indirect purchaser class. We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014. The petition to appeal was denied on September 29, 2014. The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing. The trial date for the indirect purchaser class cases is tentatively set for 2015. |
U.S. Individual Direct Purchaser Cases. We have been named as a defendant in 38 individual direct purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and October 16, 2013, which were filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The claims in the individual direct purchaser cases are generally the same as those asserted in the direct purchaser class action cases, with the exception of one case that also alleges an indirect purchaser claim. Additionally, several individual direct purchaser plaintiffs bring state claims under individual states’ consumer protection and/or antitrust statutes in addition to their federal claims. Once pretrial practice concludes, some of the individual direct purchaser cases are scheduled to be tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and others will be remanded back to the federal district courts where the cases were originally filed for trial. |
Kansas Restraint of Trade Act Cases. We have been named as defendants in two individual cases alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29, 2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. These two cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The claims and allegations of these plaintiffs are generally the same as the other direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs, with the exception that the Kansas plaintiffs seek full consideration damages (their total purchase amounts for the allegedly price-fixed polyurethane foam products). Once pretrial practice concludes, this case will be remanded back to the District of Kansas federal district court for trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canadian Class Action Cases. We have been named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100, punitive damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. The first issued class action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is on behalf of purchasers of carpet underlay. We are not yet required to file our defenses in these or any other Canadian actions. In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitée, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montréal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which was granted. This action has a pending motion for certification which is to be heard in January 2015. We also were notified in June 2014 of two motions to add us as parties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Those proceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that one proposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (Majestic Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362 Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers of carpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 Vancouver Registry). The motion to add us as parties to these actions has been scheduled to be heard with the motions for certification in the two actions in April 2015. The British Columbia actions involve British Columbia purchasers only whereas the Ontario actions propose classes of Canadian purchasers. No certification motions will be brought in the Ontario actions until after the British Columbia motions for certification have been determined. |
Missouri Class Action Case. On June 22, 2012, we were also made a party to a lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption “Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated.” The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on November 5, 2012. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification. The parties' briefing is completed, and a hearing on the motion was held on February 20, 2014. |
We deny all of the allegations in all of the above actions and will vigorously defend ourselves. These contingencies are subject to many uncertainties. Therefore, because of the complexity involved in the above cases, and based on the information available to date, and because the litigation involves unsettled legal theories, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. |
Brazilian Value-Added Tax Matters |
Brazilian Federal Cases. On December 22, 2011, the Brazilian Finance Ministry, Federal Revenue Office issued a notice of violation against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Leggett & Platt do Brasil Ltda. (“L&P Brazil”) in the amount of $3, under Case No. 10855.724660/2011-43. The Brazilian Revenue Office claimed that for the period beginning November 2006 and continuing through December 2007, L&P Brazil used an incorrect tariff code for the collection and payment of value-added tax primarily on the sale of mattress innerspring units in Brazil. L&P Brazil responded to the notice of violation on January 26, 2012 denying the violation. The Federal Revenue Office, on August 9, 2013, denied L&P Brazil’s defenses and upheld the assessment at the first administrative level. L&P Brazil filed an appeal on November 14, 2013. On December 29, 2011, L&P received another assessment in the amount of $.2, under case No. 10855.724509/2011-13 on the same subject matter in connection to certain import transactions carried out between 2007 and 2011. L&P filed its defense on February 2, 2012. |
On December 17, 2012, the Brazilian Revenue Office issued an additional notice of violation in the amount of $5.2 under MPF Case No. 10855.725260/2012-36 covering the period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 on the same subject matter. L&P Brazil responded to the notice of violation on January 17, 2013 denying the violation. The Brazilian Revenue Office, on June 13, 2013, denied L&P Brazil's defenses and upheld the assessment at the first administrative level. L&P Brazil appealed this decision on July 8, 2013. The Brazilian Revenue Office, on December 18, 2013, also issued an audit notice for years 2011 and 2012. On June 26, 2014, the Brazilian Revenue Office issued a new notice of violation against L&P Brazil in the amount of $1.0, under Case No. 10660.721523/2014-87, covering the period |
|
|
from 2011 through 2012 on the same subject matter as the other assessments. L&P Brazil filed its defense on August 5, 2014. |
|
In addition, L&P Brazil received assessments on December 22, 2011, and June 26, July 2 and November 5, 2012, and September 13, 2013 from the Brazilian Federal Revenue Office where the Revenue Office challenged L&P Brazil’s use of certain tax credits in the years 2006 through 2010. Such credits are generated based upon the tariff classification and rate used by L&P Brazil for value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings. On September 15, 2014, L&P Brazil received five additional assessments regarding this same issue, covering the period 2011 through 2012. L&P Brazil filed its defense to these assessments on October 13, 2014. Combined with the prior assessments, L&P Brazil has received assessments totaling $3.5 on the same or similar denial of tax credit matters. |
On February 1, 2013, the Brazilian Finance Ministry filed a Tax Collection action against L&P Brazil in the Camanducaia Judicial District Court, Case No. 0002222-35.2013.8.13.0878, alleging the untimely payment of $.2 of social contributions (social security and social assistance payments) for the period September to October 2010. L&P Brazil filed its response, a Motion to Stay of Execution, on July 11, 2013. L&P Brazil argued the payments were not required to be made because of the application of certain tax credits that were generated by L&P Brazil's use of a correct tariff code for the classification of value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings (i.e., the same underlying issue at stake in the other Brazilian matters). |
|
On July 17, 2014, the Brazilian Finance Ministry rendered a preliminary decision to reject certain offsetting requests presented by L&P Brazil, which originated with Administrative Proceeding No. 10660.720850/2014-11. The Brazilian Finance Ministry alleges that L&P Brazil improperly offset $.2 of social contributions otherwise due in 2011. L&P Brazil filed its response on August 5, 2014, denying the allegations. L&P Brazil is defending on the basis that the social contribution debts were correctly offset with certain tax credits that were generated by L&P Brazil's use of a correct tariff code classification for value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings (i.e., the same underlying issue at stake in the other Federal Brazilian matters). |
|
On September 4, 2014, the Brazilian Federal Revenue issued an assessment against L&P Brazil in the amount of $.2, for the period of April 2011 through June 2012, as a penalty for L&P Brazil’s requests to offset certain tax credits. We filed our defense on October 16, 2014. |
State of Sao Paulo, Brazil Cases. L&P Brazil is party to a proceeding involving the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil where the State of Sao Paulo, on April 16, 2009, issued a Notice of Tax Assessment and Imposition of Fine to L&P Brazil seeking $2.3 for the tax years 2006 and 2007, under Case No. 3.111.006 (DRT n°.04-256.169/2009). The State of Sao Paulo argued that L&P Brazil was using an incorrect tariff code for the collection and payment of value-added tax on sales of mattress innerspring units in the State of Sao Paulo. On September 29, 2010, the Court of Tax and Fees of the State of Sao Paulo ruled in favor of L&P Brazil nullifying the tax assessment. The State filed a special appeal and the Special Appeals court remanded the case back to the Court of Tax and Fees for further findings. On November 9, 2012, the Court of Tax and Fees again ruled in favor of L&P Brazil and nullified the tax assessment. On November 28, 2012, the State filed another special appeal. The determination to accept the special appeal was made on December 26, 2012, and L&P Brazil responded to this special appeal on January 24, 2013. On April 17, 2014, the Court of Tax and Fees ruled in the State's favor upholding the original assessment of $2.3. On July 31, 2014, L&P Brazil filed an annulment action, Case No. 101712346.2014.8260602 in the Sorocaba State Court seeking to have the Court of Tax and Fees ruling annulled. |
On October 4, 2012, the State of Sao Paulo issued a Tax Assessment dated May 29, 2012 under Procedure Number 4.003.484 against L&P Brazil in the amount of $1.9 for the tax years 2009 through 2011. Similar to the 2009 assessment, the State of Sao Paulo argues that L&P Brazil was using an incorrect tax rate for the collection and payment of value-added tax on sales of mattress innerspring units in the State of Sao Paulo. On June 21, 2013, the State of Sao Paulo's attorneys converted the Tax Assessment No. 4.003.484 to a tax collection action against L&P Brazil in the amount of $2.5, under Sorocaba Judicial District Court, Case No. 3005528-50.2013.8.26.0602. L&P Brazil filed its response, a Motion to Stay of Execution, on January 27, 2014 denying the allegations. |
L&P Brazil also received a Notice of Tax Assessment and Imposition of a Fine from the State of Sao Paulo dated April 1, 2014, under Procedure Number 4.038.746-0 against L&P Brazil in the amount of $1.2 for the tax years January 2011 through August 2012 regarding the same subject matter. L&P filed its response on April 30, 2014, denying the allegations. On June 27, 2014, the first administrative level denied L&P Brazil’s defense and upheld the assessment. L&P Brazil filed its appeal of this decision on July 25, 2014. |
|
State of Minas Gerais, Brazil Cases. On December 18, 2012, the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil issued a tax assessment to L&P Brazil relating to L&P Brazil's classifications of innersprings for the collection and payment of value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings in Minas Gerais from March 1, 2008 through August 31, 2012 in the amount of $.6, under PTA Case No. 01.000.182756-62. L&P Brazil filed its response denying any violation on January 17, 2013. On October 22, 2013, the first administrative level ruled against us but did reduce the tax to $.3 (plus interest and penalties). We appealed to the second administrative level on December 30, 2013, which affirmed the first administrative level ruling. The case will now proceed judicially under Case No. 0003673-61.2014.8.13.0878 in Camanducaia Judicial District Court. L&P Brazil filed its response, a Motion to Stay of Execution, on June 5, 2014. |
|
We deny all of the allegations in all of the above actions. We believe that we have valid bases upon which to contest such actions and will vigorously defend ourselves. However, these contingencies are subject to many uncertainties. |
|
Patent Infringement Claim |
On January 24, 2012, in a case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the jury entered a verdict against us in the amount of $5 based upon an allegation by plaintiff that we infringed three patents on an automatic stapling machine and on methods used to assemble box springs. This action was originally filed on October 4, 2010, as case number CV10-7416 RGK (SSx) under the caption Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated; Simmons Bedding Company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Leggett is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify Simmons Bedding Company against a claim for infringement. |
On summary judgment motions, we unsuccessfully disputed each patent’s validity and denied that we infringed any patent. At the jury trial on damages issues, the plaintiff alleged damages of $16.2. The court denied plaintiff’s attempt to win an attorney fee award and triple the pre-verdict damages. |
On April 9, 2012 we appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on February 6, 2013 before a three judge appeal panel in the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. On February 14, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment affirming the $5 verdict against us, which was fully accrued for in the first quarter of 2013 and then paid in the second quarter of 2013. We filed a petition for a rehearing of the Court of Appeals decision on March 18, 2013, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. |
The plaintiff requested royalties for post-verdict use of the machines, and requested pre-judgment interest in the amount of $.7. On July 3, 2013, the District Court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to additional ongoing royalties for our continued use of the machines, but did award pre-judgment interest of $.5. On August 2, 2013, both parties filed a notice of appeal of this order to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, but plaintiff has since withdrawn its appeal. |
In 2011, we also filed reexamination proceedings in the Patent Office (Case Nos. 95/001,543 filed February 11, 2011; 95/001,546 and 95/001,547 filed February 16, 2011), challenging the validity of each patent at issue in the lawsuit the plaintiff brought. The Patent Office examiner ruled in our favor on the key claims of one of the three patents. The Patent Office examiner initially ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of the second of the patents, but subsequently reversed that decision. With respect to the third patent, the Patent Office examiner's decision upheld the validity of all claims. All three of these proceedings were appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals. On April 25, 2013, the plaintiff filed petitions to terminate all re-examination proceedings based on the final ruling of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. We opposed those petitions. The Patent Office terminated all three re-examination proceedings, two on December 16, and one on December 18, 2013. On June 4, 2014, we requested an ex parte reexamination as to one of the patents. The Patent Office did not accept our request. |
On July 29, 2013, the plaintiff filed a second lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV13-05463 alleging that we and Simmons Bedding Company have continued to infringe the three patents on an automatic stapling machine and the methods used to assemble box springs, and that the plaintiff is entitled to additional damages from January 24,2012 forward. Leggett and Simmons Bedding Company filed their Answers on November 20, 2013. On September 10, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment finding that the use of an earlier version of the automatic stapling machines constituted infringement, but also finding that use of a redesigned version of the machine does not infringe any Imaginal patent. On October 17, 2014, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Limited Release, whereby Leggett agreed to pay Imaginal a cash payment, which is not material to the Company, to settle the part of the case concerning the machines found to infringe. Imaginal is appealing the summary judgment ruling that the redesigned stapling machines do not infringe to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. |
|
|
At this time, we do not expect that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations. |