Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Securities Class Actions Filed in Federal Court The Company and certain of its former officers (collectively, the “Defendants”) are defendants in a consolidated class action complaint in the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the “Consolidated Securities Action”). A Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the summer of 2017, which asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. After Defendants’ initial motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice to replead in October 2017, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2019 (the “Second Amended Complaint”), which made allegations similar to those in the previous complaint. After several years of motion practice and related court orders, on September 29, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2023, appealing the District Court’s decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the Second Circuit, and the appeal was fully briefed as of June 3, 2024. The Court held oral argument on Plaintiffs’ appeal on December 5, 2024, and the Parties await a decision. Additional Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaints Filed in Federal Court The former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company are defendants in a consolidated action, originally filed in 2017 in the Eastern District of New York, under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action”). The plaintiffs allege that the Company’s former directors and certain former officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results and that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and claim breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. After several years of motion practice and related court orders in the related Consolidated Securities Action, on July 24, 2020, the plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand on the Board containing overlapping factual allegations to those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board had finished investigating and resolved, among other things, that the demand should be rejected. In light of developments in the Consolidated Securities Action referenced above that remanded that case for further proceedings, the parties submitted a joint status report on December 29, 2021 requesting that the District Court continue the temporary stay pending the District Court’s reconsideration of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. The parties have agreed to extend the stay during the pendency of the pending appeal in the Consolidated Securities Action, most recently through the earlier of September 29, 2025 or 30 days after the Second Circuit issues a decision on plaintiffs’ appeal. Baby Food Class Action Litigation Since February 2021, the Company has been named in numerous consumer class actions alleging that the Company’s Earth’s Best® baby food products (the “Products”) contain unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals, namely lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Those actions were transferred and consolidated as a single lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-678 (the “Consolidated Proceeding”). In the Consolidated Proceeding, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Company violated various state consumer protection laws and assert other state and common law warranty and unjust enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the presence of these metals, arguing that consumers would have either not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the Company made adequate disclosures. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. . Following oral argument on August 1, 2024, the Court issued an order on December 27, 2024 in which it granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the alleged presence of lead, cadmium, mercury, or other substances, as well as any claims challenging the use of the “USDA Organic” seal on the Products’ labeling, and denied the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the alleged presence of arsenic in the Products. The Company filed its answer to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 23, 2025. One consumer class action is pending in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, which the court has stayed in deference to the Consolidated Proceeding. The Company denies the allegations in these lawsuits and contends that its baby foods are safe and properly labeled. The claims raised in these lawsuits were brought in the wake of a highly publicized report issued by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy on Oversight and Reform, dated February 4, 2021 (the “House Report”), addressing the presence of heavy metals in baby foods made by certain manufacturers, including the Company. Since the publication of the House Report, the Company has also received information requests with respect to the advertising and quality of its baby foods from certain governmental authorities, as such authorities investigate the claims made in the House Report. The Company is fully cooperating with these requests and has provided documents and other requested information. The Company has been named in one civil government enforcement action, State of New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Nurture, Inc., et al., which was filed by the New Mexico Attorney General against the Company and several other manufacturers based on the alleged presence of heavy metals in their baby food products. The Company and several other manufacturers moved to dismiss the New Mexico Attorney General’s lawsuit, and the Court denied that motion. The Company filed its answer to the New Mexico Attorney General’s amended complaint on April 23, 2022, and discovery is ongoing. The Company denies the New Mexico Attorney General’s allegations and maintains that its baby foods are safe, properly labeled, and compliant with New Mexico law. In addition to the consumer class actions discussed above, the Company is currently named in numerous lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging some form of personal injury from the ingestion of the Company’s Products, purportedly due to unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals. These lawsuits generally allege injuries related to neurological development disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Baby Food Multidistrict Litigation On January 4, 2024, plaintiffs in federal cases across the country filed a Motion to Transfer Actions for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings. On April 11, 2024, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted plaintiffs’ motion and transferred the cases to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. On April 15, 2024, the court issued an order staying all outstanding discovery proceedings and pending motions and vacating all previously scheduled hearing dates. There are approximately 60 federal cases filed against the Company pending in the multi-district litigation (“MDL”). Plaintiffs filed their Master Complaint on July 15, 2024. On December 18, 2024, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Master Complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The MDL will first proceed with general causation discovery. Baby Food California State Court Cases There are currently seven cases personal injury cases against the Company pending in two California state Superior Courts relating to the same allegations regarding trace levels of heavy metals in the Products. These cases are now included in Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (“JCCP”). In June 2024, the cases were assigned a trial coordination judge. All but one of the cases have been stayed. In that case, Landon R. v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., No. 23STCV24844, fact discovery has closed, and expert discovery is ongoing. Trial is currently set for July 21, 2025. Palmquist v. The Hain Celestial Group During a jury trial in February 2023 in the baby food-related matter Palmquist v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., the court granted the Company’s motion for a directed verdict, finding no liability for the Company. The Court entered Final Judgment in the Company’s favor on March 3, 2023. Plaintiffs appealed in the Fifth Circuit, and on May 28, 2024, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case and vacated the final judgement of the district court. The Company filed a petition for en banc reconsideration, which the Fifth Circuit denied. The case has been remanded to Texas state court, where it is now pending in the District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. Discovery is ongoing and the case has been set for a new trial on September 22, 2025. On January 7, 2025, the Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. That petition was granted on April 28, 2025, meaning the Supreme Court will consider the Company’s appeal. With respect to all of the above-described baby food matters, the Company denies that its Products led to any of the alleged injuries and will defend these cases vigorously. That said, as is common in circumstances of this nature, additional lawsuits may be filed against the Company in the future, asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. Such lawsuits may be resolved in a manner adverse to us, and we may incur substantial costs or damages not covered by insurance, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and business. SEC Investigation In November 2023, the staff of the SEC informed the Company it was conducting an investigation relating to Hain Celestial and requested documents primarily concerning (i) the Company’s acquisition of one business and disposition of another business and certain related accounting matters and (ii) trading activity and other matters related to the Company’s earnings guidance in certain previous fiscal years. In February 2025, the SEC notified the Company that the SEC has concluded its investigation and does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. Other In addition to the matters described above, the Company is and may be a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. With respect to all litigation and related matters, the Company records a liability when the Company believes it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. As of the end of the period covered by this report, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of the matters disclosed in this note. It is possible that some matters could require the Company to pay damages, incur other costs or establish accruals in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated as of the end of the period covered by this report.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

17.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Actions Filed in Federal Court

The Company and certain of its former officers (collectively, the “Defendants”) are defendants in a consolidated class action complaint in the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the “Consolidated Securities Action”). A Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the summer of 2017, which asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects, financial results and internal controls.

After Defendants’ initial motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice to replead in October 2017, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2019 (the “Second Amended Complaint”), which made allegations similar to those in the previous complaint. After several years of motion practice and related court orders, on September 29, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2023, appealing the District Court’s decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the Second Circuit, and the appeal was fully briefed as of June 3, 2024. The Court held oral argument on Plaintiffs’ appeal on December 5, 2024, and the Parties await a decision.

Additional Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaints Filed in Federal Court

The former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company are defendants in a consolidated action, originally filed in 2017 in the Eastern District of New York, under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action”). The plaintiffs allege that the Company’s former directors and certain former officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results and that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and claim breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste.

After several years of motion practice and related court orders in the related Consolidated Securities Action, on July 24, 2020, the plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand on the Board containing overlapping factual allegations to those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board had finished investigating and resolved, among other things, that the demand should be rejected. In light of developments in the Consolidated Securities Action referenced above that remanded that case for further proceedings, the parties submitted a joint status report on December 29, 2021 requesting that the District Court continue the temporary stay pending the District Court’s reconsideration of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. The parties have agreed to extend the stay during the pendency of the pending appeal in the Consolidated Securities Action, most recently through the earlier of September 29, 2025 or 30 days after the Second Circuit issues a decision on plaintiffs’ appeal.

Baby Food Class Action Litigation

Since February 2021, the Company has been named in numerous consumer class actions alleging that the Company’s Earth’s Best® baby food products (the “Products”) contain unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals, namely lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Those actions were transferred and consolidated as a single lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-678 (the “Consolidated Proceeding”). In the Consolidated Proceeding, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Company violated various state consumer protection laws and assert other state and common law warranty and unjust enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the presence of these metals, arguing that consumers would have either not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the Company made adequate disclosures. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. . Following oral argument on August 1, 2024, the Court issued an order on December 27, 2024 in which it granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the alleged presence of lead, cadmium, mercury, or other substances, as well as any claims challenging the use of the “USDA Organic” seal on the

Products’ labeling, and denied the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of the alleged presence of arsenic in the Products. The Company filed its answer to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 23, 2025. One consumer class action is pending in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, which the court has stayed in deference to the Consolidated Proceeding. The Company denies the allegations in these lawsuits and contends that its baby foods are safe and properly labeled.

The claims raised in these lawsuits were brought in the wake of a highly publicized report issued by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy on Oversight and Reform, dated February 4, 2021 (the “House Report”), addressing the presence of heavy metals in baby foods made by certain manufacturers, including the Company. Since the publication of the House Report, the Company has also received information requests with respect to the advertising and quality of its baby foods from certain governmental authorities, as such authorities investigate the claims made in the House Report. The Company is fully cooperating with these requests and has provided documents and other requested information.

The Company has been named in one civil government enforcement action, State of New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Nurture, Inc., et al., which was filed by the New Mexico Attorney General against the Company and several other manufacturers based on the alleged presence of heavy metals in their baby food products. The Company and several other manufacturers moved to dismiss the New Mexico Attorney General’s lawsuit, and the Court denied that motion. The Company filed its answer to the New Mexico Attorney General’s amended complaint on April 23, 2022, and discovery is ongoing. The Company denies the New Mexico Attorney General’s allegations and maintains that its baby foods are safe, properly labeled, and compliant with New Mexico law.

In addition to the consumer class actions discussed above, the Company is currently named in numerous lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging some form of personal injury from the ingestion of the Company’s Products, purportedly due to unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals. These lawsuits generally allege injuries related to neurological development disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Baby Food Multidistrict Litigation

On January 4, 2024, plaintiffs in federal cases across the country filed a Motion to Transfer Actions for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings. On April 11, 2024, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted plaintiffs’ motion and transferred the cases to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. On April 15, 2024, the court issued an order staying all outstanding discovery proceedings and pending motions and vacating all previously scheduled hearing dates. There are approximately 60 federal cases filed against the Company pending in the multi-district litigation (“MDL”). Plaintiffs filed their Master Complaint on July 15, 2024. On December 18, 2024, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Master Complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The MDL will first proceed with general causation discovery.

Baby Food California State Court Cases

There are currently seven cases personal injury cases against the Company pending in two California state Superior Courts relating to the same allegations regarding trace levels of heavy metals in the Products. These cases are now included in Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (“JCCP”). In June 2024, the cases were assigned a trial coordination judge. All but one of the cases have been stayed.

In that case, Landon R. v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., No. 23STCV24844, fact discovery has closed, and expert discovery is ongoing. Trial is currently set for July 21, 2025.

Palmquist v. The Hain Celestial Group

During a jury trial in February 2023 in the baby food-related matter Palmquist v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., the court granted the Company’s motion for a directed verdict, finding no liability for the Company. The Court entered Final Judgment in the Company’s favor on March 3, 2023.

Plaintiffs appealed in the Fifth Circuit, and on May 28, 2024, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case and vacated the final judgement of the district court. The Company filed a petition for en banc reconsideration, which the Fifth Circuit denied. The case has been remanded to Texas state court, where it is now pending in the District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. Discovery is ongoing and the case has been set for a new trial on September 22, 2025. On January 7, 2025, the Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. That petition was granted on April 28, 2025, meaning the Supreme Court will consider the Company’s appeal.

With respect to all of the above-described baby food matters, the Company denies that its Products led to any of the alleged injuries and will defend these cases vigorously. That said, as is common in circumstances of this nature, additional lawsuits may be filed against the Company in the future, asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. Such lawsuits may be resolved in a manner adverse to us, and we may incur substantial costs or damages not covered by insurance, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and business.

SEC Investigation

In November 2023, the staff of the SEC informed the Company it was conducting an investigation relating to Hain Celestial and requested documents primarily concerning (i) the Company’s acquisition of one business and disposition of another business and certain related accounting matters and (ii) trading activity and other matters related to the Company’s earnings guidance in certain previous fiscal years. In February 2025, the SEC notified the Company that the SEC has concluded its investigation and does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company.

Other

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is and may be a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business.

With respect to all litigation and related matters, the Company records a liability when the Company believes it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. As of the end of the period covered by this report, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of the matters disclosed in this note. It is possible that some matters could require the Company to pay damages, incur other costs or establish accruals in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated as of the end of the period covered by this report.