CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
CONTINGENCIES	14. CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved in various routine legal proceedings incident to the ordinary course of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all pending legal proceedings in the aggregate is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and/or its results of operations. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in legal proceedings generally, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to the Company’s operating results for a particular period depending on, among other things, the size of the loss or the nature of the liability imposed and the level of the Company’s income for that particular period. As previously announced, on October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews & Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock tendered in the Exchange Offer (the “Exchange Offer”). On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009, respectively, four purported class actions were filed by each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T. Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”). On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. Each such lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.’s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and challenged a merger proposal which MacAndrews & Forbes made on April 13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.’s outstanding Common Stock (in lieu of consummating such merger proposal, the Company consummated the aforementioned Exchange Offer). Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed merger transaction. On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court consolidated the four Delaware actions (the “Initial Consolidated Action”), and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (as amended in September 2009, the “2009 Settlement Agreement”). On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants should have disclosed in the Company’s Offer to Exchange for the Exchange Offer information regarding the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to those in the amended Sullivan complaint. Revlon initially believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the 2009 Settlement Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to enforce the 2009 Settlement Agreement. In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, certain of Revlon, Inc.’s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman. Also on December 21, 2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery Court against certain of Revlon, Inc.’s current directors and a former director by Lawrence Corneck. The Gutman and Corneck actions make allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action. On January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action (the Initial Consolidated Action, as consolidated with the Gutman and Corneck actions, is hereafter referred to as the “Consolidated Action”). A briefing schedule was then set to determine the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. Thereafter, newly appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their motion to enforce the 2009 Settlement Agreement and that merits discovery would proceed. Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part of the 2009 Settlement Agreement. On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have disclosed in the Company’s Offer to Exchange information regarding the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for class certification. Briefing on that motion was not completed. Merits discovery proceeded in the Consolidated Action. On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo against Revlon, Inc., certain of Revlon, Inc.’s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer to Exchange certain information relating to the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff in this action filed an amended complaint. On January 31, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the Garofalo action. On March 2, 2012, the plaintiff in the Garofalo action filed a response opposing defendants’ motions to dismiss, and a motion alternatively seeking leave to amend and file a second amended complaint. Briefing is complete on the motions to dismiss and motion to amend and defendants requested oral argument. Defendants previously reached an agreement with the plaintiff in the Garofalo action to permit the plaintiff to participate in merits discovery in the Consolidated Action, and agreed to permit the plaintiff to continue to participate in the merits discovery while the motions to dismiss are pending. An agreement was also reached with the plaintiff in the Sullivan action to stay proceedings in that action, including any response to the amended complaint, until December 21, 2012, so that the plaintiff could participate in the merits discovery in the Consolidated Action. On May 11, 2010, a purported derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by Richard Smutek, derivatively and on behalf of Revlon, Inc. against Revlon, Inc.’s then current directors and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging breach of fiduciary duty in allowing the Exchange Offer to proceed and failing to disclose in the Offer to Exchange certain information related to the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On August 16, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss was completed on December 10, 2010. Thereafter, the parties requested oral argument on the motions to dismiss. On September 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. In response, defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery or, in the alternative, for an extension of time for defendants to respond to plaintiff’s motion. On October 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and granted defendants’ motion to strike. Plaintiffs in each of these actions sought, among other things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of each such plaintiff’s attorneys and experts. Because the Smutek action is styled as a derivative action on behalf of the Company, any award of damages, costs and disbursements would be made to and for the benefit of the Company. Although the Company disputes the allegations in the pending actions and believes them to be without merit, on June 21, 2012, without admitting any liability, Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.’s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes (collectively, “Defendants”) entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Fidelity Management & Research Company (“FMR Co.”) and its investment advisory affiliates, all of which are direct or indirect subsidiaries of FMR LLC (collectively, “Fidelity”), which through various funds and management agreements controlled the largest block of shares to participate in the Exchange Offer, to settle potential claims Fidelity could have as a potential member of the classes that plaintiffs seek to certify in the pending actions. Fidelity executed the MOU on behalf of 6,111,879 shares (the “Fidelity Controlled Shares”) out of the 6,933,526 shares (the “Fidelity Shares”) of the Company’s Class A Common Stock that Fidelity exchanged in the Exchange Offer, and pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the remaining 821,647 shares agreed on July 12, 2012, to participate in the settlement. As part of the settlement, Fidelity agreed, among other things, to accept a cash payment from Defendants of $22.5 million (the “Fidelity Settlement Amount”), which amount was subsequently paid from insurance proceeds in July 2012, in exchange for Fidelity’s opting out with respect to the Fidelity Shares of any purported class action related to the Exchange Offer and Fidelity’s release of all related potential claims. On July 20, 2012, Fidelity and the Defendants executed a final Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (the “Stipulation”) the terms of which are substantively identical to the terms of the MOU. The Stipulation supersedes the MOU. In addition, on July 17, 2012, the Defendants entered into a binding MOU with two additional stockholders who collectively exchanged 310,690 shares in the Exchange Offer, the terms of which are substantively identical to the settlement with Fidelity and call for the payment of $1 million, in the aggregate, to the two stockholders. In August 2012, Defendants and the two additional stockholders executed a final Stipulation and Settlement Agreement which supersedes, and is substantively identical to, the MOU. The $1 million payment was subsequently paid from insurance proceeds in August 2012. In the second quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a charge and corresponding income from insurance proceeds related to the Company’s estimated allocable portion of the Fidelity Settlement Amount and the additional $1 million payment, which resulted in no impact to the Company’s Statement of Operations and Comprehensive (Loss) Income for the second quarter of 2012. The Defendants also agreed with Fidelity and the two additional stockholders (together, the “settling stockholders”) that, in the event a settlement is reached with the purported class action plaintiffs, or an award of damages is issued following a trial in any of the actions, and that settlement amount or damage award exceeds the settlement amounts on a per share basis received by the settling stockholders, the settling stockholders would each receive additional consideration subject to certain parameters. The agreements with the settling stockholders are not subject to court approval and have no effect on the actions other than to exclude the settling stockholders from any certified class. Although the Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to the asserted claims in the actions, the Defendants and plaintiffs agreed to the terms of a settlement and on October 8, 2012, executed settlement agreements that, if approved by the courts to which they are presented, will resolve all claims in all of the actions (the “Settlement”). The Settlement provides that the Defendants will make net cash payments totaling approximately $9.2 million to settle all of the actions, and full and complete releases will be provided to Defendants from all plaintiffs. If approved by the courts, the Settlement will also result in additional payments to the settling stockholders totaling approximately $4.2 million, of which approximately $4 million will be paid to Fidelity. As previously disclosed in the Q2 2012 Form 10-Q, in the second quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a charge of $6.7 million with respect to the Company’s then-estimated costs of resolving the actions, including the Company’s estimate at that time of additional payments to be made to the settling stockholders. In addition to the charge of $6.7 million it recorded in the second quarter of 2012, the Company has recorded an additional charge of $2.2 million in the third quarter of 2012 in connection with payments to be made by the Company as a result of the Settlement and the additional payments to be made to the settling stockholders. This additional charge is included within SG&A expenses in the Company’s Statements of Operations and Comprehensive (Loss) Income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012. There can be no assurance as to the amount, if any, of additional insurance proceeds that the Company may receive in connection with its resolution of the actions. In any event, at least $5 million of future payments to be made by the Defendants relating to these matters, including expenses, will not be covered by insurance. The Settlement is subject to court approval.

14. CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in various routine legal proceedings incident to the ordinary course of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all pending legal proceedings in the aggregate is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and/or its results of operations. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in legal proceedings generally, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to the Company’s operating results for a particular period depending on, among other things, the size of the loss or the nature of the liability imposed and the level of the Company’s income for that particular period.

As previously announced, on October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews & Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock tendered in the Exchange Offer (the “Exchange Offer”). On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009, respectively, four purported class actions were filed by each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T. Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”). On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. Each such lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.’s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and challenged a merger proposal which MacAndrews & Forbes made on April 13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.’s outstanding Common Stock (in lieu of consummating such merger proposal, the Company consummated the aforementioned Exchange Offer). Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed merger transaction. On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court consolidated the four Delaware actions (the “Initial Consolidated Action”), and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (as amended in September 2009, the “2009 Settlement Agreement”).

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants should have disclosed in the Company’s Offer to Exchange for the Exchange Offer information regarding the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to those in the amended Sullivan complaint. Revlon initially believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the 2009 Settlement Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to enforce the 2009 Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, certain of Revlon, Inc.’s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman. Also on December 21, 2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery Court against certain of Revlon, Inc.’s current directors and a former director by Lawrence Corneck. The Gutman and Corneck actions make allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action. On January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action (the Initial Consolidated Action, as consolidated with the Gutman and Corneck actions, is hereafter referred to as the “Consolidated Action”). A briefing schedule was then set to determine the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. Thereafter, newly appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their motion to enforce the 2009 Settlement Agreement and that merits discovery would proceed. Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part of the 2009 Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have disclosed in the Company’s Offer to Exchange information regarding the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for class certification. Briefing on that motion was not completed. Merits discovery proceeded in the Consolidated Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo against Revlon, Inc., certain of Revlon, Inc.’s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer to Exchange certain information relating to the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff in this action filed an amended complaint. On January 31, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the Garofalo action. On March 2, 2012, the plaintiff in the Garofalo action filed a response opposing defendants’ motions to dismiss, and a motion alternatively seeking leave to amend and file a second amended complaint. Briefing is complete on the motions to dismiss and motion to amend and defendants requested oral argument. Defendants previously reached an agreement with the plaintiff in the Garofalo action to permit the plaintiff to participate in merits discovery in the Consolidated Action, and agreed to permit the plaintiff to continue to participate in the merits discovery while the motions to dismiss are pending. An agreement was also reached with the plaintiff in the Sullivan action to stay proceedings in that action, including any response to the amended complaint, until December 21, 2012, so that the plaintiff could participate in the merits discovery in the Consolidated Action.

On May 11, 2010, a purported derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by Richard Smutek, derivatively and on behalf of Revlon, Inc. against Revlon, Inc.’s then current directors and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging breach of fiduciary duty in allowing the Exchange Offer to proceed and failing to disclose in the Offer to Exchange certain information related to the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On August 16, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss was completed on December 10, 2010. Thereafter, the parties requested oral argument on the motions to dismiss. On September 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. In response, defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery or, in the alternative, for an extension of time for defendants to respond to plaintiff’s motion. On October 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and granted defendants’ motion to strike.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions sought, among other things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of each such plaintiff’s attorneys and experts. Because the Smutek action is styled as a derivative action on behalf of the Company, any award of damages, costs and disbursements would be made to and for the benefit of the Company.

Although the Company disputes the allegations in the pending actions and believes them to be without merit, on June 21, 2012, without admitting any liability, Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.’s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes (collectively, “Defendants”) entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Fidelity Management & Research Company (“FMR Co.”) and its investment advisory affiliates, all of which are direct or indirect subsidiaries of FMR LLC (collectively, “Fidelity”), which through various funds and management agreements controlled the largest block of shares to participate in the Exchange Offer, to settle potential claims Fidelity could have as a potential member of the classes that plaintiffs seek to certify in the pending actions.

Fidelity executed the MOU on behalf of 6,111,879 shares (the “Fidelity Controlled Shares”) out of the 6,933,526 shares (the “Fidelity Shares”) of the Company’s Class A Common Stock that Fidelity exchanged in the Exchange Offer, and pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the remaining 821,647 shares agreed on July 12, 2012, to participate in the settlement. As part of the settlement, Fidelity agreed, among other things, to accept a cash payment from Defendants of $22.5 million (the “Fidelity Settlement Amount”), which amount was subsequently paid from insurance proceeds in July 2012, in exchange for Fidelity’s opting out with respect to the Fidelity Shares of any purported class action related to the Exchange Offer and Fidelity’s release of all related potential claims. On July 20, 2012, Fidelity and the Defendants executed a final Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (the “Stipulation”) the terms of which are substantively identical to the terms of the MOU. The Stipulation supersedes the MOU. In addition, on July 17, 2012, the Defendants entered into a binding MOU with two additional stockholders who collectively exchanged 310,690 shares in the Exchange Offer, the terms of which are substantively identical to the settlement with Fidelity and call for the payment of $1 million, in the aggregate, to the two stockholders. In August 2012, Defendants and the two additional stockholders executed a final Stipulation and Settlement Agreement which supersedes, and is substantively identical to, the MOU. The $1 million payment was subsequently paid from insurance proceeds in August 2012.

In the second quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a charge and corresponding income from insurance proceeds related to the Company’s estimated allocable portion of the Fidelity Settlement Amount and the additional $1 million payment, which resulted in no impact to the Company’s Statement of Operations and Comprehensive (Loss) Income for the second quarter of 2012.

The Defendants also agreed with Fidelity and the two additional stockholders (together, the “settling stockholders”) that, in the event a settlement is reached with the purported class action plaintiffs, or an award of damages is issued following a trial in any of the actions, and that settlement amount or damage award exceeds the settlement amounts on a per share basis received by the settling stockholders, the settling stockholders would each receive additional consideration subject to certain parameters. The agreements with the settling stockholders are not subject to court approval and have no effect on the actions other than to exclude the settling stockholders from any certified class.

Although the Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to the asserted claims in the actions, the Defendants and plaintiffs agreed to the terms of a settlement and on October 8, 2012, executed settlement agreements that, if approved by the courts to which they are presented, will resolve all claims in all of the actions (the “Settlement”).

The Settlement provides that the Defendants will make net cash payments totaling approximately $9.2 million to settle all of the actions, and full and complete releases will be provided to Defendants from all plaintiffs. If approved by the courts, the Settlement will also result in additional payments to the settling stockholders totaling approximately $4.2 million, of which approximately $4 million will be paid to Fidelity.

As previously disclosed in the Q2 2012 Form 10-Q, in the second quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a charge of $6.7 million with respect to the Company’s then-estimated costs of resolving the actions, including the Company’s estimate at that time of additional payments to be made to the settling stockholders. In addition to the charge of $6.7 million it recorded in the second quarter of 2012, the Company has recorded an additional charge of $2.2 million in the third quarter of 2012 in connection with payments to be made by the Company as a result of the Settlement and the additional payments to be made to the settling stockholders. This additional charge is included within SG&A expenses in the Company’s Statements of Operations and Comprehensive (Loss) Income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012.

There can be no assurance as to the amount, if any, of additional insurance proceeds that the Company may receive in connection with its resolution of the actions. In any event, at least $5 million of future payments to be made by the Defendants relating to these matters, including expenses, will not be covered by insurance.

The Settlement is subject to court approval.