COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters The Company is involved, from time to time, in various litigation, regulatory, administrative and other legal proceedings, including consumer class or collective actions, personal injury (including asbestos related claims), intellectual property, competition and advertising claims litigation, among others (collectively, “Legal Proceedings”). While the Company cannot predict any final outcomes relating thereto, management believes that the outcome of current Legal Proceedings will not have a material effect upon its business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or the trading price of the Company’s securities. However, management’s assessment of the Company’s current Legal Proceedings is ongoing, and could change in light of the discovery of additional facts with respect to Legal Proceedings not presently known to the Company, further legal analysis, or determinations by judges, arbitrators, juries or other finders of fact or deciders of law which are not in accord with management’s evaluation of the probable liability or outcome of such Legal Proceedings. From time to time, the Company is in discussions with regulators, including discussions initiated by the Company, about actual or potential violations of law in order to remediate or mitigate associated legal or compliance risks and liabilities or penalties. As the outcomes of such proceedings are unpredictable, the Company can give no assurance that the results of any such proceedings will not materially affect its reputation, business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or the trading price of its securities. Certain Litigation. Two purported stockholder class action lawsuits concerning the Offer and the Schedule 14D-9 have been filed by putative stockholders against the Company and the directors of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The first case, which was filed on April 3, 2019, is captioned Lawrence Phillips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. the Company, Peter Harf, Pierre Laubies, Sabine Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer and Paul S. Michaels, Case No. 1:19-cv-00628. The second case, which was filed on April 9, 2019, is captioned Robert Rumsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. the Company, Peter Harf, Pierre Laubies, Sabine Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer and Paul S. Michaels, Case No. 1:19-cv-00650. The plaintiffs allege that the Company’s Schedule 14D-9 omits certain information, including, among other things, certain financial data and certain analyses underlying the opinion of Centerview Partners LLC. Plaintiffs assert claims under the federal securities laws and seek, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ allegations lack merit and intends to contest them vigorously. A third purported stockholder class action lawsuit concerning the Offer and the Schedule 14D-9 was filed against the directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company, S.à.r.l., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company is not named as a defendant. The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, is captioned Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated holders of Coty Inc., v. Peter Harf, Pierre Laubies, Sabine Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer, Paul S. Michaels, JAB Holding Company, S.à.r.l., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V., Case No. 2019-0336-CB. The plaintiff alleges that the directors and the JAB Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders and seeks, among other things, monetary relief. Other Matters. In connection with the Offer, several putative stockholders served on the Company demands to inspect certain books and records of the Company pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Each demand seeks to inspect documents as part of a purported investigation of possible breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board in connection with the Offer. Brazilian Tax Assessments In connection with a local tax audit of one of the Company’s subsidiaries in Brazil, the Company was notified of tax assessments issued in March 2018. The assessments relate to local sales tax credits, which the Treasury Office of the State of Goiás considers improperly registered for the 2016-2017 tax periods. The Company is currently seeking a favorable administrative decision on the tax enforcement action filed by the Treasury Office of the State of Goiás. These tax assessments, including estimated interest and penalties, through March 31, 2019 amount to a total of R$249.0 million (approximately $63.8). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and it has not recognized a loss for these assessments as the Company does not believe a loss is probable.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

The Company is involved, from time to time, in various litigation, regulatory, administrative and other legal proceedings, including consumer class or collective actions, personal injury (including asbestos related claims), intellectual property, competition and advertising claims litigation, among others (collectively, “Legal Proceedings”). While the Company cannot predict any final outcomes relating thereto, management believes that the outcome of current Legal Proceedings will not have a material effect upon its business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or the trading price of the Company’s securities. However, management’s assessment of the Company’s current Legal Proceedings is ongoing, and could change in light of the discovery of additional facts with respect to Legal Proceedings not presently known to the Company, further legal analysis, or determinations by judges, arbitrators, juries or other finders of fact or deciders of law which are not in accord with management’s evaluation of the probable liability or outcome of such Legal Proceedings. From time to time, the Company is in discussions with regulators, including discussions initiated by the Company, about actual or potential violations of law in order to remediate or mitigate associated legal or compliance risks and liabilities or penalties. As the outcomes of such proceedings are unpredictable, the Company can give no assurance that the results of any such proceedings will not materially affect its reputation, business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or the trading price of its securities.

Certain Litigation. Two purported stockholder class action lawsuits concerning the Offer and the Schedule 14D-9 have been filed by putative stockholders against the Company and the directors of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The first case, which was filed on April 3, 2019, is captioned Lawrence Phillips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. the Company, Peter Harf, Pierre Laubies, Sabine Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer and Paul S. Michaels, Case No. 1:19-cv-00628. The second case, which was filed on April 9, 2019, is captioned Robert Rumsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. the Company, Peter Harf, Pierre Laubies, Sabine Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer and Paul S. Michaels, Case No. 1:19-cv-00650. The plaintiffs allege that the Company’s Schedule 14D-9 omits certain information, including, among other things, certain financial data and certain analyses underlying the opinion of Centerview Partners LLC. Plaintiffs assert claims under the federal securities laws and seek, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ allegations lack merit and intends to contest them vigorously.

A third purported stockholder class action lawsuit concerning the Offer and the Schedule 14D-9 was filed against the directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company, S.à.r.l., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company is not named as a defendant. The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, is captioned Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated holders of Coty Inc., v. Peter Harf, Pierre Laubies, Sabine Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer, Paul S. Michaels, JAB Holding Company, S.à.r.l., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V., Case No. 2019-0336-CB. The plaintiff alleges that the directors and the JAB Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders and seeks, among other things, monetary relief.

Other Matters. In connection with the Offer, several putative stockholders served on the Company demands to inspect certain books and records of the Company pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Each demand seeks to inspect documents as part of a purported investigation of possible breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board in connection with the Offer.

Brazilian Tax Assessments

In connection with a local tax audit of one of the Company’s subsidiaries in Brazil, the Company was notified of tax assessments issued in March 2018. The assessments relate to local sales tax credits, which the Treasury Office of the State of Goiás considers improperly registered for the 2016-2017 tax periods. The Company is currently seeking a favorable administrative decision on the tax enforcement action filed by the Treasury Office of the State of Goiás. These tax assessments, including estimated interest and penalties, through March 31, 2019 amount to a total of R$249.0 million (approximately $63.8). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and it has not recognized a loss for these assessments as the Company does not believe a loss is probable.