Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

16. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We are party to routine claims, suits, investigations, audits, and other proceedings arising from the ordinary course of business, including with respect to intellectual property rights, contractual claims, labor and employment matters, regulatory matters, tax matters, unclaimed property matters, compliance matters, and collection matters. In the opinion of management, such routine claims and lawsuits are not significant, and we do not expect them to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. We are also party to the proceedings set forth below.

EEOC Settlement

In September 2021, we entered into a proposed consent decree with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) to settle claims regarding certain employment practices. The consent decree was approved by the United States District Court, Central District of California on March 29, 2022. The consent decree, among other things, provides for the creation of an $18 million settlement fund for eligible claimants; upgrading Company policies, practices, and training to further prevent and eliminate harassment and discrimination in its workplaces, including implementing an expanded performance review system with a new equal opportunity focus; and providing ongoing oversight and review of the Company’s training programs, investigation policies, disciplinary framework and compliance by appointing a third-party equal opportunity consultant for the next three years whose findings will be regularly reported to the EEOC and shared with our Board of Directors. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “DFEH”) filed a motion to intervene in the matter, seeking to object to the consent decree, including the amount of the settlement fund; that motion was denied. The DFEH filed a notice of appeal of the order denying the DFEH’s motion to intervene. The DFEH’s opening brief for its appeal of the Court’s order denying its motion to intervene is due to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 18, 2022. On April 19, 2022, DFEH filed a second motion to intervene with the District Court.

Pending Employment-Related Matters

On July 20, 2021, the DFEH filed a complaint (the “DFEH Matter”) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California against Activision Blizzard, Blizzard Entertainment and Activision Publishing (together, the “Defendants”) alleging violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Equal Pay Act. The DFEH filed a First Amended Complaint in the DFEH Matter on August 23, 2021. The Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; the motion was heard on February 15, 2022. The Defendants’ motion was denied in part and granted in part, and the DFEH did not amend with respect to the granted portion. The DFEH has moved to strike the Company’s answer. In addition, in January 2022, the Company’s Board of Directors received notice of an investigation by the DFEH and investigatory subpoenas.

On August 3, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, entitled Gary Cheng v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06240-PA-JEM. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of Activision shareholders who purchased stock between February 28, 2017 and November 16, 2021, and assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against the Company and five current or former officers. An amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2021 and, in an order dated April 18, 2022, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend.

Beginning on August 6, 2021, three putative shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, and those cases have now been consolidated in an action entitled York County on Behalf of County of York Retirement Fund v. Robert A. Kotick, et al., Case No. 21STCV28949. On November 15, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, entitled Luke Kahnert v. Robert A. Kotick, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08968-PA-JEM. The putative derivative actions collectively assert claims on the Company’s behalf against thirteen current or former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, misappropriation, contribution, and alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegations similar to those in the DFEH Matter and in the securities class action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant.

The Company is cooperating with an investigation by the SEC regarding disclosures on employment matters and related issues including responding to subpoenas from the SEC. The SEC has also issued subpoenas to a number of current and former executives and other employees in connection with this matter.

We are unable to predict the impact of the above pending matters on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity at this time.

Legal Proceedings Regarding the Merger

Following the announcement of the proposed transaction with Microsoft, complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and its directors: Stein v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01560 (S.D.N.Y.); Perry v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-02074 (S.D.N.Y.); Whitfield v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al., 2:22-cv-01182 (E.D.N.Y.); Lande v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01267 (E.D.N.Y.); Watson v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-01268 (C.D. Cal.); Rubin v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal.); Baker v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv00875 (E.D. Pa.); and David v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00339 (D. Del.). The complaints each assert violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the proposed transaction between the Company and Microsoft omitted certain purportedly material information which rendered the preliminary proxy statement incomplete and misleading. Specifically, the complaints allege that the preliminary proxy statement failed to disclose material information regarding the sales process, the Company’s projections and the financial analyses of the Company’s financial advisor. The complaints sought, among other things, an order to enjoin the transaction unless additional disclosures were issued; and, if the transaction closes, damages. The Watson complaint also alleges that the Company’s directors entered into the transaction for self-interested reasons, including receipt of personal benefits in the transaction. As of May 3, 2022, plaintiffs filed notices to voluntarily dismiss the complaints in Stein, Baker, Whitfield and Perry.

Following the announcement of the proposed transaction with Microsoft, the Company also received several demand letters from purported stockholders and two lawsuits, Sjunde AP-Fonden v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 2022-0281-KSJM (Del. Ch.) and New York City Employees’ Retirement System et. al. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 2022-0365 (No. C.A.) (together the “220 Complaints”), for books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Among other things, the demand letters and the 220 Complaints seek to investigate purported breaches of fiduciary duty related to the proposed transaction. Specifically, the demands seek to investigate Mr. Kotick’s role in the proposed transaction with one of the demands alleging that Mr. Kotick’s position at the Company was at risk given workplace issues and he chose to pursue a transaction rather than resign. Such demand further alleges that Mr. Kotick agreed to a price range without authorization from our Board of Directors and that our Board of Directors allowed Mr. Kotick to control the transaction process. Such demand also alleges that the transaction price is inadequate because Microsoft’s opportunistic offer took advantage of the Company’s purportedly depressed stock price and that management may have attempted to validate the consideration through downward adjustments to the Company’s long-range plan.

The Company received a voluntary request for information from the SEC and a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ, both of which appear to relate to their respective investigations into trading by third parties – including persons known to the Company’s CEO – in securities prior to the announcement of the proposed transaction with Microsoft. The Company has informed these authorities that it intends to be fully cooperative with these investigations.