Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and ContingenciesFrom time to time, the Company is involved in litigation and other proceedings, including matters related to commercial and intellectual property disputes, as well as trade, regulatory and other claims related to its business. Other than as described below, the Company believes that all current proceedings are routine in nature and

incidental to the conduct of its business, and that the ultimate resolution of any such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In re Under Armour Securities Litigation

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the “District Court”) were consolidated under the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB (the “Consolidated Action”). On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action, North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) against the Company, the Company’s then-Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, and former Chief Financial Officers Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act against the officers named in the Amended Complaint, claiming that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products. The class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September 16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), in connection with the Company’s public offering of senior unsecured notes in June 2016. The Securities Act claims are asserted against the Company, the Mr. Plank, Mr. Molloy, the Company’s directors who signed the registration statement pursuant to which the offering was made and the underwriters that participated in the offering. The Amended Complaint alleges that the offering materials utilized in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company’s growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company’s products.

On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without prejudice. The lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 16, 2018, asserting claims under the Exchange Act and naming the Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 17, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

In September 2019, plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging the decisions by the District Court on September 19, 2018 and August 19, 2019 (the “Appeal”). The Appeal was fully briefed as of January 16, 2020. On November 18, 2019, before briefing on the Appeal was complete, the lead plaintiff filed in the District Court a motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 (the “Rule 62.1 Motion”) seeking relief from the final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Rule 62.1 Motion alleged that purported newly discovered evidence entitled the lead plaintiff to relief from the District Court’s final judgment. On January 22, 2020, the District Court granted the Rule 62.1 motion and indicated that it would grant a motion for relief from the final judgment and provide the lead plaintiff with the opportunity to file a third amended complaint if the Fourth Circuit remands for that purpose. The District Court further stated that it would, upon remand, consolidate the matter with Patel v. Under Armour, Inc. and Waronker v. Under Armour Inc., described below, and appoint the lead plaintiff of In re Under Armour Securities Litigation as the lead plaintiff over the consolidated cases.

The Company continues to believe that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of this matter.

Patel v. Under Armour, Inc. and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc.

On November 6, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a securities case in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and the Company’s then-Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, Chief Financial Officer, David Bergman, and then-Chief Operating Officer, Patrik Frisk, as well as former Chief Financial Officer, Lawrence Molloy (captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No 1:19-cv-03209-RDB). The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Exchange Act, against all defendants, and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act against the current and former officers named in the complaint. The complaint claims that the defendants’ disclosures and statements supposedly misrepresented or omitted that the Company was purportedly shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier and that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission since July 2017. The class period identified in the complaint is August 3, 2016 through November 1, 2019, inclusive.

On December 17, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a securities case in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and Mr. Plank, Mr. Bergman and Mr. Frisk, as well as two former Chief Financial Officers of the Company (captioned Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03581-RDB). Like the Patel complaint, the Waronker complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Exchange Act, against all defendants, and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act against the current and former officers named in the complaint. The complaint claims that the defendants’ disclosures and statements supposedly misrepresented or omitted that the Company was purportedly shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier and that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission since July 2017. The class period identified in the complaint is September 16, 2015 through November 1, 2019, inclusive.

The Court has not consolidated these cases or appointed a lead plaintiff and the Company has no pending deadline to respond to the complaint in either of these actions. As described above, the Court indicated in a January 22, 2020 decision in the In re Under Armour Securities Litigation case that it anticipated consolidating that matter with these cases and appointing the lead plaintiff in In re Under Armour Securities Litigation as the lead plaintiff over the consolidated cases, in the event that the Fourth Circuit remands the In re Under Armour Securities Litigation case.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of these proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of these matters.

Olin Derivative Complaint

On December 26, 2019, Dale Olin, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in state court in Baltimore, Maryland, captioned Olin v. Under Armour, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-19-006850 (Md. Cir. Ct.). The complaint was brought against Mr. Plank, Mr. Bergman and Mr. Frisk, and certain other members of the Company’s Board of Directors and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties between August 2016 and November 2019 by (i) failing to disclose or take appropriate action regarding alleged shifting of sales between quarterly periods to appear healthier, (ii) failing to “adhere to accepted accounting principles regarding revenue recognition, which resulted in materially false and misleading public statements by the Company,” (iii) failing to disclose that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and (iv) exposing the Company to the aforementioned investigations and to a securities fraud class action. Prior to the filing of the derivative complaint in Olin v. Under Armour, Inc., et al., the purported stockholder did not make a demand that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the complaint.

The Company and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Olin action on March 12, 2020. On March 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court, dismissing its complaint without prejudice.

Sagamore Derivative Complaints

In April 2018, two purported stockholders filed separate stockholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. These were brought against Mr. Plank and certain other members of the Company’s Board of Directors and named the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints made allegations related to the Company’s purchase of certain parcels of land from entities controlled by Mr. Plank (through Sagamore Development Company, LLC (“Sagamore”)), as well as other related party transactions.

Prior to the filing of these derivative complaints, each of the purported stockholders had sent the Company’s Board of Directors a letter demanding that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the derivative complaints. Following an investigation, a majority of disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims should not be pursued by the Company and informed each of these purported stockholders of that determination.

Sagamore purchased the parcels in 2014. Its total investment in the parcels was approximately $72.0 million, which included the initial $35.0 million purchase price for the property, an additional $30.6 million to terminate a lease encumbering the property and approximately $6.4 million of development costs. As previously disclosed, in June 2016, the Company purchased the unencumbered parcels for $70.3 million in order to further expand the Company’s corporate headquarters to accommodate its growth needs. The Company negotiated a purchase price for the parcels that it determined represented the fair market value of the parcels and approximated the cost to the seller to purchase and develop the parcels. In connection with its evaluation of the potential purchase, the Company engaged an independent third-party to appraise the fair market value of the parcels, and

the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors engaged its own independent appraisal firm to assess the parcels. The Audit Committee determined that the terms of the purchase were reasonable and fair, and the transaction was approved by the Audit Committee in accordance with the Company’s policy on transactions with related persons.

On March 20, 2019, these cases were consolidated under the caption In re Under Armour, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the court. On May 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated derivative complaint asserting that Mr. Plank and the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the purchase of the parcels and other related party transactions and that Sagamore aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the other defendants in connection with Sagamore’s alleged role in the sale of the parcels to the Company. The consolidated complaint also asserted an unjust enrichment claim against Mr. Plank and Sagamore. It sought damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions.

The Company and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July 2, 2019. On March 30, 2020, the court granted the motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint in its entirety.

Disclosure-related Derivative Complaints

In June and July 2018, three purported stockholder derivative complaints were filed. Two of the complaints were filed in Maryland state court (in cases captioned Kenney v. Plank, et al. (filed June 29, 2018) and Luger v. Plank, et al. (filed July 26, 2018), respectively), and those cases were consolidated on October 19, 2018 under the caption Kenney v. Plank, et. al. The other complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (in a case captioned Andersen v. Plank et al. (filed July 23, 2018)). The operative complaints in these cases name Mr. Plank, certain other members of the Company’s Board of Directors and certain former Company executives as defendants, and name the Company as a nominal defendant. The operative complaints include allegations similar to those in the In re Under Armour Securities Litigation matter discussed above that challenges, among other things, the Company’s disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company’s products and stock sales by certain individual defendants. The operative complaints in each of these cases assert breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the individual defendants. The operative complaint in the Kenney matter also makes allegations similar to those in the consolidated complaint in the In re Under Armour, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation matter discussed above regarding the Company’s purchase of parcels from entities controlled by Mr. Plank through Sagamore and asserts a claim of corporate waste against the individual defendants. These complaints seek similar remedies to the remedies sought in the In re Under Armour, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation complaint.

The Andersen action was stayed between December 2018 and August 2019 pursuant to a court order. In September 2019, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the court in the Andersen action entered an order staying that case pending the resolution of the Appeal in In re Under Armour Securities Litigation. On March 29, 2019, the court in the consolidated Kenney action granted the Company’s and the defendants’ motion to stay that case pending the outcome of both the In re Under Armour Securities Litigation and the In re Under Armour, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation matters.

Prior to the filing of the derivative complaints in Kenney v. Plank, et al., Luger v. Plank, et al., and Andersen v. Plank et al., each of the purported stockholders had sent the Company’s Board of Directors a letter demanding that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the derivative complaints. Following an investigation, a majority of disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims should not be pursued by the Company and informed each of these purported stockholders of that determination.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the derivative complaints are without merit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of these proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of these matters.

Data Incident

In 2018, an unauthorized third party acquired data associated with the Company's Connected Fitness users' accounts for the Company's MyFitnessPal application and website. The Company has faced consumer class action lawsuits associated with this incident and has received inquiries regarding the incident from certain government regulators and agencies. The Company does not currently consider these matters to be material and believes its insurance coverage will provide coverage should any significant expense arise.