XML 53 R35.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.21.2
LEGAL AND OTHER CONTINGENCIES
 12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
LEGAL AND OTHER CONTINGENCIES LEGAL AND OTHER CONTINGENCIES
Legal Matters
The Company is involved, from time to time, in various litigation, administrative and other legal proceedings, including regulatory actions, incidental or related to its business, including consumer class or collective actions, personal injury (including asbestos claims related to the Company’s talc-based cosmetic products), intellectual property, competition, compliance and advertising claims litigation and disputes, 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. A consolidated purported stockholder class action and derivative complaint concerning the tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. (the “Cottage Tender Offer”) and the Schedule 14D-9 is pending against certain current and former directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company S.à r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, was captioned Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Harf et al., Case No. 2019-0336-AGB. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint (“Amended Complaint”). After defendants responded to the Amended Complaint, on October 21, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”), alleging that the directors and JAB Holding Company S.à r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders and breached the Stockholders Agreement. The Second Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary relief. On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss certain claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and certain of the director defendants also answered the complaint. On May 7, 2020, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of JAB Holding Company S.à r.l. from the action. On August 17, 2020, the court denied the remaining motions to dismiss. The case is currently at the discovery stage.
A purported stockholder class action complaint, alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws in connection with the P&G beauty brands acquisition is pending against the Company as well as certain current and former officers of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case, which was filed on September 4, 2020, is captioned Crystal Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07277 (the “Evans Action”). On November 23, 2020, the court appointed the individual Susan Nock as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Firm as lead counsel. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 22, 2021. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws and seeks, among other things, monetary relief. On March 8, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on August 4, 2021 the court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that it failed to set forth a valid claim.
A second purported stockholder class action and derivative complaint, alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws in connection with the P&G beauty brands acquisition and the Kylie Brands transaction as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets by certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case, which was filed on November 17, 2020, is captioned Chris Lewis v. Becht et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09685. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief. This case remains at an early stage. This action was voluntarily stayed during the pendency of the motion to dismiss the Evans Action.
At this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, not covered by available insurance, that may result given the current status of these lawsuits.
A complaint alleging various claims including breach of contract and violations of the California Trade Secrets Act was filed against the Company and King Kylie LLC (“King Kylie”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on June 30, 2020. The case is captioned Seed Beauty, LLC et al., v. Coty Inc., et al., Case No. 20VECV00721 (the “Seed Action”). The plaintiffs, Seed Beauty, LLC and BETA Beauty, LLC (collectively, “Seed”) sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Company and King Kylie from discussing or using certain alleged Seed trade secrets. The court denied this request. In addition, following the announcement of the potential deal between the Company and KKW Beauty, LLC (“KKW”), Seed commenced a lawsuit against KKW in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The case, which was filed June 19, 2020, is captioned Seed Beauty, LLC et al., v. KKW Beauty, LLC, Case No. 20VECV00684, and was before the same court as the Seed Action. Seed secured a temporary restraining order prohibiting KKW from sharing with the Company certain alleged Seed trade secrets related to the business relationship between Seed and KKW, as contained in certain documents filed in the action under seal. The Company was not a party to this action but the temporary restraining order imposed on KKW had been extended to the Company. In April 2021, SEED and King Kylie, KKW and the Company reached an agreement to settle the litigations brought by SEED, which have been formally dismissed. The Company’s portion of the settlement was not material including both its direct allocation as well as the portion attributable to King Kylie and its 20% KKW stake. A portion of the Company’s direct allocation was covered by indemnifications from the King Kylie and KKW sellers.
Brazilian Tax Assessments
The Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries receive tax assessments from local, state and federal tax authorities in Brazil from time to time. Current open tax assessments as of June 30, 2021 are:
Assessment receivedType of assessmentType of TaxTax period impacted
Estimated amount, including interest and penalties as of
June 30, 2021
Mar-18State sales tax credits, which the Treasury Office of the State of Goiás considers as improperly registeredICMS2016-2017
R$361.7 million (approximately $73.0)
Aug-20ICMS2017-2019
R$663.2 million (approximately $133.8)
Oct-20Federal excise taxes, which the Treasury Office of the Brazil’s Internal Revenue Service considers as improperly calculatedIPI2016-2017
R$341.1 million (approximately $68.8)
Nov-20State sales taxes, which the Treasury Office of the State of Minas Gerais considers as improperly calculatedICMS2016-2019
R$186.4 million (approximately $37.6)
Jun-21State sales tax, which the Treasury Office of the State of Goiás considers as improperly calculatedICMS2016-2020
R$76.0 million (approximately $15.3)
All cases are currently in the administrative process. The Company is seeking favorable administrative decisions on the tax enforcement actions filed by the tax authorities for these assessments. 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. Due to the fiscal environment in Brazil, the possibility of further tax assessments related to the same or similar matters cannot be ruled out.
Other Commitments
At June 30, 2021, the aggregate future minimum purchase obligations, which include commitments to purchase inventory and other services agreements, were as follows:
Fiscal Year Ending June 30,Purchase Obligations
2022$610.7 
202346.4 
202428.9 
20255.3 
20268.0 
Thereafter— 
Total$699.3