NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements and related disclosures have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") applicable to interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of only those of a normal recurring nature, considered necessary for a fair statement of the financial position and interim results of Mattel, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("Mattel") as of and for the periods presented have been included.
Mattel adopted Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2016-02—Leases (Topic 842) and its related amendments (collectively "the new lease standard") on January 1, 2019 using the modified retrospective transition method. Prior periods were not retrospectively adjusted and continue to be reported under the accounting standards in effect for those periods, as further discussed in "
Note 5
to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Leases."
Mattel modified its reporting structure for revenues and reorganized its regional sales reporting structure in the first quarter of 2019. Prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation, as further discussed in "
Note 23
to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Segment Information."
The
December 31, 2018
balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements; however, the accompanying interim notes to the consolidated financial statements do not include all the annual disclosures required by GAAP. As Mattel's business is seasonal, results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of those that may be expected for a full year. The financial information included herein should be read in conjunction with Mattel's consolidated financial statements and related notes in its
2018
Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Accounts receivable are net of allowances for doubtful accounts of
$21.3 million
,
$21.0 million
, and
$22.0 million
as of
June 30, 2019
,
June 30, 2018
, and
December 31, 2018
, respectively.
Inventories include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Raw materials and work in process
|
$
|
129,937
|
|
|
$
|
130,093
|
|
|
$
|
115,966
|
|
Finished goods
|
592,457
|
|
|
585,195
|
|
|
426,923
|
|
|
$
|
722,394
|
|
|
$
|
715,288
|
|
|
$
|
542,889
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Property, Plant, and Equipment
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net includes the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Land
|
$
|
25,133
|
|
|
$
|
25,030
|
|
|
$
|
25,023
|
|
Buildings
|
298,768
|
|
|
296,672
|
|
|
294,227
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
873,294
|
|
|
887,496
|
|
|
875,308
|
|
Software
|
409,209
|
|
|
385,284
|
|
|
400,488
|
|
Tools, dies, and molds
|
818,166
|
|
|
867,997
|
|
|
831,743
|
|
Capital leases
|
—
|
|
|
23,927
|
|
|
23,927
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
237,150
|
|
|
241,275
|
|
|
240,636
|
|
|
2,661,720
|
|
|
2,727,681
|
|
|
2,691,352
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation
|
(2,065,882
|
)
|
|
(2,007,934
|
)
|
|
(2,033,757
|
)
|
|
$
|
595,838
|
|
|
$
|
719,747
|
|
|
$
|
657,595
|
|
Mattel adopted the new lease standard on January 1, 2019 using the modified retrospective transition method. Prior periods were not retrospectively adjusted and continue to be reported under the accounting standards in effect for those periods. Mattel elected the package of practical expedients, permitted under the transition guidance within the new lease standard, which among other things, allowed Mattel to continue to account for existing leases based on the historical lease classification. Mattel also elected the practical expedients to exclude right-of-use ("ROU") assets and lease liabilities for leases with an initial term of 12 months or less from the balance sheet, and to combine lease and non-lease components for property leases, which primarily relate to ancillary expenses such as common area maintenance charges and management fees.
Mattel determines if an arrangement is a lease at inception by assessing whether it conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration. Mattel's leases are primarily related to property leases for its retail stores, warehouses, and corporate offices. Mattel's leases have remaining lease terms of up to
14 years
, and often include one or more options to renew for up to
10 years
. Renewal and termination options are included in the lease term when it is reasonably certain that Mattel will exercise the option.
In addition, certain of Mattel's lease agreements include contingent rental payments based on a percentage of sales. Contingent rental expense is recorded in the period in which the contingent event becomes probable. Mattel's lease agreements do not contain any material residual guarantees or material restrictive covenants.
ROU assets and lease liabilities are recognized at the lease commencement date based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term. As substantially all of Mattel's leases do not provide an implicit rate, Mattel uses its incremental borrowing rate, based on the information available at the lease commencement date, to determine the present value of lease payments. Based on the present value of lease payments for Mattel's existing leases, Mattel recorded net lease assets and lease liabilities of approximately
$343 million
and
$390 million
, respectively, upon adoption. The net lease assets were adjusted for deferred rent, lease incentives, and prepaid rent. Mattel had no material finance leases. The new lease standard did not materially impact Mattel's consolidated statements of operations and had no impact on Mattel's consolidated statements of cash flows.
The impact of the new lease standard on the
June 30, 2019
consolidated balance sheet was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
(In thousands, except years and percentage information)
|
Right-of-use assets, net
|
$
|
317,085
|
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
$
|
75,071
|
|
Noncurrent lease liabilities
|
284,947
|
|
Total lease liabilities
|
$
|
360,018
|
|
|
|
Weighted average remaining lease term
|
6.7 years
|
|
|
|
Weighted average discount rate
|
8.1
|
%
|
Operating lease costs are recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Total operating lease costs for the three months ended
June 30, 2019
were
$35.2 million
, which included approximately
$10 million
related to short-term and variable lease costs. Total operating lease costs for the
six
months ended
June 30, 2019
were
$69.2 million
, which included approximately
$20 million
related to short-term and variable lease costs.
Supplemental information related to leases was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
June 30, 2019
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
June 30, 2019
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of operating lease liabilities
|
$
|
26,743
|
|
|
$
|
53,169
|
|
Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities
|
$
|
6,617
|
|
|
$
|
7,431
|
|
The following table shows the future maturities of lease liabilities for leases in effect as of
June 30, 2019
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ending December 31,
|
|
Lease Liabilities
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
2019 (excluding the six months ended June 30, 2019)
|
|
$
|
51,442
|
|
2020
|
|
93,318
|
|
2021
|
|
78,005
|
|
2022
|
|
57,874
|
|
2023
|
|
43,129
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
151,103
|
|
|
|
474,871
|
|
Less: imputed interest
|
|
(114,853
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
360,018
|
|
As previously disclosed in our 2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K and under the previous lease standard (Topic 840), future minimum obligations under lease commitments in effect at December 31, 2018 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
Leases
|
|
Operating
Leases
|
|
(In thousands)
|
2019
|
$
|
294
|
|
|
$
|
110,794
|
|
2020
|
25
|
|
|
83,566
|
|
2021
|
—
|
|
|
72,606
|
|
2022
|
—
|
|
|
59,191
|
|
2023
|
—
|
|
|
56,123
|
|
Thereafter
|
—
|
|
|
133,716
|
|
|
$
|
319
|
|
(a)
|
$
|
515,996
|
|
_______________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
Includes minimal imputed interest.
|
Rental expense under operating leases were
$127.1 million
for
2018
.
Goodwill is allocated to various reporting units, which are at the operating segment level, for the purpose of evaluating whether goodwill is impaired. Mattel's reporting units are: (i) North America, (ii) International, and (iii) American Girl. Mattel tests its goodwill for impairment annually in the third quarter and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of a reporting unit may exceed its fair value.
The change in the carrying amount of goodwill by operating segment for the
six
months ended
June 30, 2019
is shown below. Brand-specific goodwill held by foreign subsidiaries is allocated to the North America segment, thereby causing a foreign currency translation impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
Currency
Exchange Rate
Impact
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
(In thousands)
|
North America
|
$
|
731,234
|
|
|
$
|
(157
|
)
|
|
$
|
731,077
|
|
International
|
447,619
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
447,409
|
|
American Girl
|
207,571
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
207,571
|
|
|
$
|
1,386,424
|
|
|
$
|
(367
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,386,057
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Other Noncurrent Assets
|
Other noncurrent assets include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Identifiable intangible assets (net of accumulated amortization of $228.2 million, $179.5 million, and $207.9 million, respectively)
|
$
|
566,737
|
|
|
$
|
612,234
|
|
|
$
|
587,528
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
49,937
|
|
|
74,992
|
|
|
49,937
|
|
Other
|
215,453
|
|
|
205,138
|
|
|
209,541
|
|
|
$
|
832,127
|
|
|
$
|
892,364
|
|
|
$
|
847,006
|
|
Mattel's amortizable intangible assets primarily consist of trademarks. Mattel tests its amortizable intangible assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the asset may not be recoverable. Mattel's amortizable intangible assets were not impaired during the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
. During the three months ended June 30, 2018, Mattel discontinued the use of certain brands and products, which resulted in
$4.3 million
of asset impairments.
Accrued liabilities include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Current lease liabilities
|
$
|
75,071
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Royalties
|
62,781
|
|
|
63,453
|
|
|
108,109
|
|
Advertising and promotion
|
58,276
|
|
|
45,864
|
|
|
86,935
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
26,529
|
|
|
27,819
|
|
|
54,317
|
|
Other
|
367,875
|
|
|
448,449
|
|
|
451,060
|
|
|
$
|
590,532
|
|
|
$
|
585,585
|
|
|
$
|
700,421
|
|
On December 20, 2017, Mattel, Inc. entered into a syndicated facility agreement (as amended, the "Credit Agreement"), as a borrower thereunder (in such capacity, the "Borrower"), along with certain of the Borrower's other subsidiaries as additional borrowers and/or guarantors thereunder, providing for
$1.60 billion
in aggregate principal amount of senior secured revolving credit facilities (the "senior secured revolving credit facilities"), consisting of (i) an asset based lending facility with aggregate commitments of
$1.31 billion
, subject to borrowing base capacity, secured by substantially all of the accounts receivable and inventory of the Borrower and its subsidiaries who are borrowers and/or guarantors under the Credit Agreement, as well as (ii) a revolving credit facility with
$294.0 million
in aggregate commitments secured by certain fixed assets and intellectual property and various equity interests in the borrower and guarantor subsidiaries under the Credit Agreement. The senior secured revolving credit facilities will mature on June 1, 2021.
Borrowings under the senior secured revolving credit facilities will (i) be limited by jurisdiction-specific borrowing base calculations based on the sum of specified percentages of eligible accounts receivable, eligible inventory and certain fixed assets and intellectual property, as applicable, minus the amount of any applicable reserves, and (ii) bear interest at a floating rate, which can be either, at the Borrower's option, (a) an adjusted LIBOR rate plus an applicable margin ranging from
1.25%
to
3.00%
per annum or (b) an alternate base rate plus an applicable margin ranging from
0.25%
to
2.00%
per annum, in each case, such applicable margins to be determined based on the Borrower's average borrowing availability remaining under the senior secured revolving credit facilities.
In addition to paying interest on the outstanding principal under the senior secured revolving credit facilities, the Borrower will be required to pay (i) an unused line fee per annum of the average daily unused portion of the senior secured revolving credit facilities, (ii) a letter of credit fronting fee based on a percentage of the aggregate face amount of outstanding letters of credit, and (iii) certain other customary fees and expenses of the lenders and agents.
Mattel had borrowings under the senior secured revolving credit facilities of approximately
$45 million
and
$80 million
as of
June 30, 2019
and
June 30, 2018
, respectively and had no borrowings under the senior secured revolving credit facilities as of December 31, 2018. Outstanding letters of credit under the senior secured revolving credit facilities totaled approximately
$70 million
,
$42 million
, and
$89 million
as of
June 30, 2019
,
June 30, 2018
, and
December 31, 2018
, respectively.
The Credit Agreement contains customary covenants, including, but not limited to, restrictions on the Borrower's and its subsidiaries' ability to merge and consolidate with other companies, incur indebtedness, grant liens or security interests on assets, make acquisitions, loans, advances, or investments, pay dividends, sell or otherwise transfer assets outside of the ordinary course, optionally prepay or modify terms of any junior indebtedness, enter into transactions with affiliates, or change their line of business.
The Credit Agreement requires the maintenance of a fixed charge coverage ratio of
1.00
to
1.00
at the end of each fiscal quarter when excess availability under the senior secured revolving credit facilities is less than the greater of (x)
$100 million
and (y)
10%
of the aggregate amount available thereunder (the "Availability Threshold") and on the last day of each subsequent fiscal quarter ending thereafter until no event of default exists and excess availability is greater than the Availability Threshold for at least
30
consecutive days.
Since the execution of the Credit Agreement, the fixed charge coverage ratio covenant has not been in effect as no event of default has occurred and as Mattel's excess availability has been greater than
$100 million
and the Availability Threshold. As of
June 30, 2019
, Mattel was in compliance with all covenants contained in the Credit Agreement. The Credit Agreement is a material agreement, and failure to comply with the covenants may result in an event of default under the terms of the senior secured revolving credit facilities. If Mattel were to default under the terms of the senior secured revolving credit facilities, its ability to meet its seasonal financing requirements could be adversely affected.
Long-term debt includes the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
2010 Senior Notes due October 2020 and October 2040
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
2011 Senior Notes due November 2041
|
300,000
|
|
|
300,000
|
|
|
300,000
|
|
2013 Senior Notes due March 2023
|
250,000
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
2016 Senior Notes due August 2021
|
350,000
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
2017/2018 Senior Notes due December 2025
|
1,500,000
|
|
|
1,500,000
|
|
|
1,500,000
|
|
Debt issuance costs and debt discount
|
(44,806
|
)
|
|
(51,823
|
)
|
|
(48,277
|
)
|
|
2,855,194
|
|
|
2,848,177
|
|
|
2,851,723
|
|
Less: current portion
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
2,855,194
|
|
|
$
|
2,848,177
|
|
|
$
|
2,851,723
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Other Noncurrent Liabilities
|
Other noncurrent liabilities include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Benefit plan liabilities
|
$
|
184,220
|
|
|
$
|
179,473
|
|
|
$
|
166,289
|
|
Noncurrent tax liabilities
|
138,018
|
|
|
122,425
|
|
|
150,960
|
|
Other
|
88,333
|
|
|
141,951
|
|
|
152,420
|
|
|
$
|
410,571
|
|
|
$
|
443,849
|
|
|
$
|
469,669
|
|
|
|
12.
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
|
The following tables present changes in the accumulated balances for each component of other comprehensive income (loss), including current period other comprehensive income (loss) and reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2019
|
|
Derivative
Instruments
|
|
Available-for-Sale Security
|
|
Defined Benefit
Pension Plans
|
|
Currency
Translation
Adjustments
|
|
Total
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax, as of March 31, 2019
|
$
|
16,470
|
|
|
$
|
(4,670
|
)
|
|
$
|
(142,540
|
)
|
|
$
|
(707,194
|
)
|
|
$
|
(837,934
|
)
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications
|
3,254
|
|
|
(1,944
|
)
|
|
(618
|
)
|
|
(1,170
|
)
|
|
(478
|
)
|
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
(2,492
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,242
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(1,250
|
)
|
Net increase (decrease) in other comprehensive income
(loss)
|
762
|
|
|
(1,944
|
)
|
|
624
|
|
|
(1,170
|
)
|
|
(1,728
|
)
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax, as of June 30, 2019
|
$
|
17,232
|
|
|
$
|
(6,614
|
)
|
|
$
|
(141,916
|
)
|
|
$
|
(708,364
|
)
|
|
$
|
(839,662
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2019
|
|
Derivative
Instruments
|
|
Available-for-Sale Security
|
|
Defined Benefit
Pension Plans
|
|
Currency
Translation
Adjustments
|
|
Total
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax, as of December 31, 2018
|
$
|
11,411
|
|
|
$
|
(6,547
|
)
|
|
$
|
(142,763
|
)
|
|
$
|
(721,327
|
)
|
|
$
|
(859,226
|
)
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications
|
9,072
|
|
|
(67
|
)
|
|
(1,824
|
)
|
|
12,963
|
|
|
20,144
|
|
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
(3,251
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,671
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(580
|
)
|
Net increase (decrease) in other comprehensive income (loss)
|
5,821
|
|
|
(67
|
)
|
|
847
|
|
|
12,963
|
|
|
19,564
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax, as of June 30, 2019
|
$
|
17,232
|
|
|
$
|
(6,614
|
)
|
|
$
|
(141,916
|
)
|
|
$
|
(708,364
|
)
|
|
$
|
(839,662
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2018
|
|
Derivative
Instruments
|
|
Available-for-Sale Security
|
|
Defined Benefit
Pension Plans
|
|
Currency
Translation
Adjustments
|
|
Total
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss, Net of Tax, as of March 31, 2018
|
$
|
(21,986
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,879
|
)
|
|
$
|
(141,597
|
)
|
|
$
|
(572,687
|
)
|
|
$
|
(739,149
|
)
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications
|
17,652
|
|
|
(2,709
|
)
|
|
(2,899
|
)
|
|
(105,727
|
)
|
|
(93,683
|
)
|
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
4,786
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
3,968
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
8,754
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in other comprehensive income
(loss)
|
22,438
|
|
|
(2,709
|
)
|
|
1,069
|
|
|
(105,727
|
)
|
|
(84,929
|
)
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax, as of June 30, 2018
|
$
|
452
|
|
|
$
|
(5,588
|
)
|
|
$
|
(140,528
|
)
|
|
$
|
(678,414
|
)
|
|
$
|
(824,078
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2018
|
|
Derivative
Instruments
|
|
Available-for-Sale Security
|
|
Defined Benefit
Pension Plans
|
|
Currency
Translation
Adjustments
|
|
Total
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss, Net of Tax, as of December 31, 2017
|
$
|
(21,098
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,799
|
)
|
|
$
|
(143,213
|
)
|
|
$
|
(614,676
|
)
|
|
$
|
(781,786
|
)
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications
|
12,333
|
|
|
(2,789
|
)
|
|
(3,107
|
)
|
|
(63,738
|
)
|
|
(57,301
|
)
|
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
9,217
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,792
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
15,009
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in other comprehensive income (loss)
|
21,550
|
|
|
(2,789
|
)
|
|
2,685
|
|
|
(63,738
|
)
|
|
(42,292
|
)
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax, as of June 30, 2018
|
$
|
452
|
|
|
$
|
(5,588
|
)
|
|
$
|
(140,528
|
)
|
|
$
|
(678,414
|
)
|
|
$
|
(824,078
|
)
|
The following table presents the classification and amount of the reclassifications from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) to the consolidated statements of operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
Statements of Operations
Classification
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Derivative Instruments
|
|
Gain (loss) on foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
2,675
|
|
|
$
|
(4,767
|
)
|
|
Cost of sales
|
Tax effect of net gain (loss)
|
(183
|
)
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
2,492
|
|
|
$
|
(4,786
|
)
|
|
Net loss
|
Defined Benefit Pension Plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service credit (a)
|
$
|
493
|
|
|
$
|
502
|
|
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
Recognized actuarial loss (a)
|
(1,735
|
)
|
|
(2,046
|
)
|
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
Settlement loss
|
—
|
|
|
(2,401
|
)
|
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
|
(1,242
|
)
|
|
(3,945
|
)
|
|
|
Tax effect of net loss
|
—
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
(1,242
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,968
|
)
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
Statements of Operations
Classification
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Derivative Instruments
|
|
Gain (loss) on foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
3,602
|
|
|
$
|
(9,150
|
)
|
|
Cost of sales
|
Tax effect of net gain (loss)
|
(351
|
)
|
|
(67
|
)
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
3,251
|
|
|
$
|
(9,217
|
)
|
|
Net loss
|
Defined Benefit Pension Plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service credit (a)
|
$
|
986
|
|
|
$
|
1,003
|
|
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
Recognized actuarial loss (a)
|
(3,472
|
)
|
|
(4,363
|
)
|
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
Settlement loss
|
—
|
|
|
(2,443
|
)
|
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
|
(2,486
|
)
|
|
(5,803
|
)
|
|
|
Tax effect of net loss
|
(185
|
)
|
|
11
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
(2,671
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5,792
|
)
|
|
Net loss
|
_______________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
The amortization of prior service credit and recognized actuarial loss are included in the computation of net periodic benefit cost. Refer to "
Note 16
to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Employee Benefit Plans" of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for additional information regarding Mattel's net periodic benefit cost.
|
Currency Translation Adjustments
Mattel's reporting currency is the U.S. dollar. The translation of its net investments in subsidiaries with non-U.S. dollar functional currencies subjects Mattel to the impact of currency exchange rate fluctuations in its results of operations and financial position. Assets and liabilities of subsidiaries with non-U.S. dollar functional currencies are translated into U.S. dollars at fiscal period-end exchange rates. Income, expense, and cash flow items are translated at weighted average exchange rates prevailing during the fiscal period. The resulting currency translation adjustments are recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) within stockholders' equity. Currency translation adjustments resulted in a net gain of
$13.0 million
for the
six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, primarily due to the strengthening of the Russian ruble, Hong Kong dollar, and Mexican peso against the U.S. dollar, partially offset by the weakening of the Euro against the U.S. dollar. Currency translation adjustments resulted in a net
loss
of
$63.7 million
for the
six
months ended
June 30, 2018
, primarily due to the weakening of the Euro, Brazilian real, Russian ruble, and British pound sterling against the U.S. dollar.
|
|
13.
|
Derivative Instruments
|
Mattel seeks to mitigate its exposure to foreign currency transaction risk by monitoring its foreign currency transaction exposure for the year and partially hedging such exposure using foreign currency forward exchange contracts. Mattel uses foreign currency forward exchange contracts as cash flow hedges primarily to hedge its purchases and sales of inventory denominated in foreign currencies. These contracts generally have maturity dates of up to
18 months
. These derivative instruments have been designated as effective cash flow hedges, whereby the unsettled hedges are reported in Mattel's consolidated balance sheets at fair value, with changes in the fair value of the hedges reflected in other comprehensive income ("OCI"). Realized gains and losses for these contracts are recorded in the consolidated statements of operations in the period in which the inventory is sold to customers. Additionally, Mattel uses foreign currency forward exchange contracts to hedge intercompany loans and advances denominated in foreign currencies. Due to the short-term nature of the contracts involved, Mattel does not use hedge accounting for these contracts, and as such, changes in fair value are recorded in the period of change in the consolidated statements of operations. As of
June 30, 2019
,
June 30, 2018
, and
December 31, 2018
, Mattel held foreign currency forward exchange contracts with notional amounts of
$1.06 billion
,
$992.8 million
, and
$962.1 million
, respectively.
The following tables present Mattel's derivative assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Assets
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Balance Sheet Classification
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
13,620
|
|
|
$
|
7,321
|
|
|
$
|
12,122
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses and
other current assets
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
2,573
|
|
|
2,041
|
|
|
1,613
|
|
|
Other noncurrent assets
|
Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments
|
$
|
16,193
|
|
|
$
|
9,362
|
|
|
$
|
13,735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
929
|
|
|
$
|
1,418
|
|
|
$
|
2,357
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses and
other current assets
|
|
$
|
17,122
|
|
|
$
|
10,780
|
|
|
$
|
16,092
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Liabilities
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Balance Sheet Classification
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
949
|
|
|
$
|
6,535
|
|
|
$
|
954
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
363
|
|
|
195
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments
|
$
|
1,312
|
|
|
$
|
6,730
|
|
|
$
|
1,139
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
467
|
|
|
$
|
630
|
|
|
$
|
1,771
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
1,779
|
|
|
$
|
7,360
|
|
|
$
|
2,910
|
|
|
|
The following tables present the classification and amount of gains and losses, net of tax, from derivatives reported in the consolidated statements of operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2019
|
|
June 30, 2018
|
|
Statements of
Operations
Classification
|
|
Amount of Gain Recognized in OCI
|
|
Amount of Gain Reclassified from Accumulated OCI to Statement of Operations
|
|
Amount of Gain Recognized in OCI
|
|
Amount of (Loss) Reclassified from Accumulated OCI to Statement of Operations
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
3,254
|
|
|
$
|
2,492
|
|
|
$
|
17,652
|
|
|
$
|
(4,786
|
)
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2019
|
|
June 30, 2018
|
|
Statements of
Operations
Classification
|
|
Amount of Gain Recognized in OCI
|
|
Amount of Gain Reclassified from Accumulated OCI to Statement of Operations
|
|
Amount of Gain Recognized in OCI
|
|
Amount of (Loss) Reclassified from Accumulated OCI to Statement of Operations
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
9,072
|
|
|
$
|
3,251
|
|
|
$
|
12,333
|
|
|
$
|
(9,217
|
)
|
|
Cost of sales
|
The net
gains
of
$2.5 million
and
$3.3 million
reclassified from
accumulated other comprehensive loss
to the consolidated statements of operations for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, respectively, and the net
losses
of
$4.8 million
and
$9.2 million
reclassified from
accumulated other comprehensive loss
to the consolidated statements of operations for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2018
, respectively, are offset by the changes in cash flows associated with the underlying hedged transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in the Statements of Operations
|
|
Statements of Operations
Classification
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
4,366
|
|
|
$
|
(31,552
|
)
|
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
—
|
|
|
(248
|
)
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
$
|
4,366
|
|
|
$
|
(31,800
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in the Statements of Operations
|
|
Statements of Operations
Classification
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
$
|
3,868
|
|
|
$
|
(16,864
|
)
|
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts
|
—
|
|
|
(248
|
)
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
$
|
3,868
|
|
|
$
|
(17,112
|
)
|
|
|
The net
gains
of
$4.4 million
and
$3.9 million
recognized in the consolidated statements of operations for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, respectively, and the net
losses
of
$31.8 million
and
$17.1 million
recognized in the consolidated statements of operations for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2018
, respectively, are offset by foreign currency transaction gains and losses on the related hedged balances.
|
|
14.
|
Fair Value Measurements
|
The following tables present information about Mattel's assets and liabilities measured and reported in the financial statements at fair value on a recurring basis as of
June 30, 2019
,
June 30, 2018
, and
December 31, 2018
and indicates the fair value hierarchy of the valuation techniques utilized to determine such fair value. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:
|
|
•
|
Level 1 – Valuations based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity has the ability to access.
|
|
|
•
|
Level 2 – Valuations based on quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted prices in markets that are not active, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.
|
|
|
•
|
Level 3 – Valuations based on inputs that are unobservable, supported by little or no market activity, and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.
|
Mattel's financial assets and liabilities include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2019
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Total
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts (a)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
17,122
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
17,122
|
|
Available-for-sale security (b)
|
5,206
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,206
|
|
Total assets
|
$
|
5,206
|
|
|
$
|
17,122
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
22,328
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts (a)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,779
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2018
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Total
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts (a)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
10,780
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
10,780
|
|
Available-for-sale security (b)
|
6,201
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
6,201
|
|
Total assets
|
$
|
6,201
|
|
|
$
|
10,780
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
16,981
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts (a)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
7,360
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
7,360
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2018
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Total
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts (a)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
16,092
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
16,092
|
|
Available-for-sale security (b)
|
5,243
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,243
|
|
Total assets
|
$
|
5,243
|
|
|
$
|
16,092
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
21,335
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward exchange contracts (a)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
2,910
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
2,910
|
|
____________________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
The fair value of the foreign currency forward exchange contracts is based on dealer quotes of market forward rates and reflects the amount that Mattel would receive or pay at their maturity dates for contracts involving the same notional amounts, currencies, and maturity dates.
|
|
|
(b)
|
The fair value of the available-for-sale security is based on the quoted price on an active public exchange.
|
Non-Recurring Fair Value Measurements
Mattel tests its long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable or that the carrying value may exceed its fair value. Mattel fully impaired certain property, plant, and equipment in the amounts of
$2.6 million
and
$6.8 million
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, respectively, and fully impaired certain intangible assets and property, plant, and equipment in the amounts of
$7.1 million
and
$11.9 million
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, respectively, due to discontinued use. There was no remaining value attributed to the identified intangible assets and property, plant, and equipment impaired during the six months ended June 30, 2019 and 2018.
Other Financial Instruments
Mattel's financial instruments include cash and equivalents, accounts receivable and payable, accrued liabilities, short-term borrowings, and long-term debt. The fair values of these instruments, excluding long-term debt, approximate their carrying values because of their short-term nature. Cash and equivalents are classified as Level 1 and all other financial instruments are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.
The estimated fair value of Mattel's long-term debt was
$2.81 billion
(compared to a carrying value of
$2.90 billion
) as of
June 30, 2019
,
$2.73 billion
(compared to a carrying value of
$2.90 billion
) as of
June 30, 2018
, and
$2.49 billion
(compared to a carrying value of
$2.90 billion
) as of
December 31, 2018
. The estimated fair values have been calculated based on broker quotes or rates for the same or similar instruments and are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.
Unvested share-based payment awards that contain nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents (whether paid or unpaid) are participating securities and are included in the computation of earnings per share pursuant to the two-class method. Prior to June 30, 2018, certain of Mattel's restricted stock units ("RSUs") were considered participating securities because they contained nonforfeitable rights to dividend equivalents.
Under the two-class method, net income is reduced by the amount of dividends declared in the period for each class of common stock and participating securities. The remaining undistributed earnings are then allocated to common stock and participating securities as if all of the net income for the period had been distributed. Basic earnings per common share excludes dilution and is calculated by dividing net income allocable to common shares by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per common share is calculated by dividing net income allocable to common shares by the weighted average number of common shares for the period, as adjusted for the potential dilutive effect of non-participating share-based awards.
The following table reconciles earnings per common share for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
and
2018
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
$
|
(107,987
|
)
|
|
$
|
(240,931
|
)
|
|
$
|
(291,705
|
)
|
|
$
|
(552,184
|
)
|
Less: Net loss allocable to participating RSUs (a)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Net loss available for basic common shares
|
$
|
(107,987
|
)
|
|
$
|
(240,931
|
)
|
|
$
|
(291,705
|
)
|
|
$
|
(552,184
|
)
|
Weighted average number of common shares
|
345,941
|
|
|
344,584
|
|
|
345,946
|
|
|
344,507
|
|
Basic net loss per common share
|
$
|
(0.31
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.70
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.84
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.60
|
)
|
Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
$
|
(107,987
|
)
|
|
$
|
(240,931
|
)
|
|
$
|
(291,705
|
)
|
|
$
|
(552,184
|
)
|
Less: Net loss allocable to participating RSUs (a)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Net loss available for diluted common shares
|
$
|
(107,987
|
)
|
|
$
|
(240,931
|
)
|
|
$
|
(291,705
|
)
|
|
$
|
(552,184
|
)
|
Weighted average number of common shares
|
345,941
|
|
|
344,584
|
|
|
345,946
|
|
|
344,507
|
|
Weighted average common equivalent shares arising from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive stock options and non-participating RSUs (b)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Weighted average number of common and potential common shares
|
345,941
|
|
|
344,584
|
|
|
345,946
|
|
|
344,507
|
|
Diluted net loss per common share
|
$
|
(0.31
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.70
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.84
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.60
|
)
|
_______________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
Mattel did not have participating RSUs for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
. For the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2018
, Mattel did not allocate its net loss to its participating RSUs as its participating RSUs were not obligated to share in the losses of the Company.
|
|
|
(b)
|
Mattel was in a net loss position for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
and
2018
, and, accordingly, all outstanding nonqualified stock options and non-participating RSUs were excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per common share because their effect would be antidilutive.
|
|
|
16.
|
Employee Benefit Plans
|
Mattel and certain of its subsidiaries have qualified and nonqualified retirement plans covering substantially all employees of these companies, which are more fully described in Part II, Item 8 "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—
Note 4
to the Consolidated Financial Statements–Employee Benefit Plans" in its
2018
Annual Report on Form 10-K.
A summary of the components of net periodic benefit
cost
for Mattel's defined benefit pension plans is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Service cost
|
$
|
1,678
|
|
|
$
|
1,108
|
|
|
$
|
2,634
|
|
|
$
|
2,192
|
|
Interest cost
|
4,826
|
|
|
4,555
|
|
|
9,666
|
|
|
9,197
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
(5,434
|
)
|
|
(5,657
|
)
|
|
(10,878
|
)
|
|
(11,331
|
)
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
16
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
16
|
|
Recognized actuarial loss
|
1,831
|
|
|
2,126
|
|
|
3,664
|
|
|
4,523
|
|
Settlement loss
|
—
|
|
|
2,401
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,443
|
|
|
$
|
2,917
|
|
|
$
|
4,541
|
|
|
$
|
5,118
|
|
|
$
|
7,040
|
|
A summary of the components of net periodic benefit
credit
for Mattel's postretirement benefit plans is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Service cost
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
Interest cost
|
50
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
104
|
|
Amortization of prior service credit
|
(509
|
)
|
|
(509
|
)
|
|
(1,018
|
)
|
|
(1,019
|
)
|
Recognized actuarial gain
|
(96
|
)
|
|
(80
|
)
|
|
(192
|
)
|
|
(160
|
)
|
|
$
|
(555
|
)
|
|
$
|
(537
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,110
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,074
|
)
|
During the
six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, Mattel made cash contributions totaling approximately $
3 million
related to its defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans. During the remainder of
2019
, Mattel expects to make additional cash contributions of approximately
$3 million
.
Mattel has various stock compensation plans, which are more fully described in Part II, Item 8 "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—
Note 8
to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Share-Based Payments" in its
2018
Annual Report on Form 10-K. Under the Mattel, Inc. Amended and Restated 2010 Equity and Long-Term Compensation Plan, Mattel has the ability to grant nonqualified stock options, incentive stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, RSUs, performance awards, dividend equivalent rights, and shares of common stock to officers, employees, and other persons providing services to Mattel. Stock options are granted with exercise prices at the fair market value of Mattel's common stock on the applicable grant date and expire no later than
10 years
from the date of grant. Stock options and RSUs generally provide for vesting over a period of
three years
from the date of grant.
As of
June 30, 2019
,
two
long-term incentive programs were in place with the following performance cycles: (i) a January 1, 2017–December 31, 2019 performance cycle and (ii) a January 1, 2018–December 31, 2020 performance cycle.
Compensation expense, included within other selling and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations, related to stock options and RSUs is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Stock option compensation expense
|
$
|
2,168
|
|
|
$
|
690
|
|
|
$
|
4,574
|
|
|
$
|
3,374
|
|
RSU compensation expense (a)
|
10,277
|
|
|
7,304
|
|
|
19,736
|
|
|
19,043
|
|
|
$
|
12,445
|
|
|
$
|
7,994
|
|
|
$
|
24,310
|
|
|
$
|
22,417
|
|
_______________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
Includes compensation expense of
$1.3 million
and
$2.1 million
associated with Mattel's long-term incentive programs for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, respectively.
|
As of
June 30, 2019
, total unrecognized compensation expense related to unvested share-based payments totaled
$69.8 million
and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of
1.8
years.
Mattel uses treasury shares purchased under its share repurchase program to satisfy stock option exercises and the vesting of RSUs.
No
cash was received for stock option exercises during the
six
months ended
June 30, 2019
and
2018
.
|
|
18.
|
Other Selling and Administrative Expenses
|
Other selling and administrative expenses include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Design and development
|
$
|
52,186
|
|
|
$
|
54,081
|
|
|
$
|
94,631
|
|
|
$
|
106,221
|
|
Identifiable intangible asset amortization
|
$
|
9,909
|
|
|
$
|
9,532
|
|
|
$
|
20,338
|
|
|
$
|
19,730
|
|
|
|
19.
|
Foreign Currency Transaction Exposure
|
Currency exchange rate fluctuations may impact Mattel's results of operations and cash flows. Mattel's currency transaction exposures include gains and losses realized on unhedged inventory purchases and unhedged receivables and payables balances that are denominated in a currency other than the applicable functional currency. Gains and losses on unhedged inventory purchases and other transactions associated with operating activities are recorded in the components of
operating loss
in the consolidated statements of operations. Gains and losses on unhedged intercompany loans and advances are recorded as a component of
other non-operating (income) expense, net
in the consolidated statements of operations in the period in which the currency exchange rate changes. Inventory transactions denominated in the Euro, Mexican peso, British pound sterling, Canadian dollar, Brazilian real, Australian dollar, and Russian ruble were the primary transactions that caused foreign currency transaction exposure for Mattel during the first half of
2019
.
Currency transaction
gains (losses)
included in the consolidated statements of operations are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Operating income (loss)
|
$
|
672
|
|
|
$
|
(12,274
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,098
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4,541
|
)
|
Other non-operating income (expense), net
|
1,117
|
|
|
446
|
|
|
(551
|
)
|
|
1,033
|
|
Currency transaction gains (losses), net
|
$
|
1,789
|
|
|
$
|
(11,828
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,649
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,508
|
)
|
|
|
20.
|
Restructuring Charges
|
Structural Simplification Cost Savings Program
During the third quarter of 2017, Mattel initiated its Structural Simplification cost savings program. The major initiatives of the Structural Simplification cost savings program include:
|
|
•
|
Reducing manufacturing complexity, including SKU reduction, and implementing process improvement initiatives at owned and co-manufacturing facilities;
|
|
|
•
|
Streamlining the organizational structure and reducing headcount expense to better align with the revenue base; and
|
|
|
•
|
Optimizing advertising spend.
|
In connection with the Structural Simplification cost savings program, Mattel recorded severance and other restructuring charges of
$6.4 million
and
$15.2 million
during the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, respectively, as compared to
$47.8 million
and
$72.7 million
during the
three and six
ended
June 30, 2018
, respectively, within other selling and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations, which is included in corporate and other expense in "
Note 23
to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Segment Information."
The following table summarizes Mattel's severance and other restructuring costs activity related to the Structural Simplification cost savings program for the
six
months ended
June 30, 2019
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability at December 31, 2018
|
|
Charges
|
|
Payments/Utilization
|
|
Liability at
June 30, 2019
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Severance
|
$
|
27,670
|
|
|
$
|
7,174
|
|
|
$
|
(22,398
|
)
|
|
$
|
12,446
|
|
Other restructuring costs (a)
|
13,722
|
|
|
7,982
|
|
|
(13,742
|
)
|
|
7,962
|
|
|
$
|
41,392
|
|
|
$
|
15,156
|
|
|
$
|
(36,140
|
)
|
|
$
|
20,408
|
|
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
Consists primarily of consulting fees.
|
To date, Mattel has recorded cumulative severance and other restructuring charges of
$170.1 million
and expects to incur total severance and restructuring charges of approximately
$185 million
related to the Structural Simplification cost savings program.
Capital Light Initiative
During the first quarter of 2019, Mattel announced the commencement of its Capital Light initiative to optimize Mattel's manufacturing footprint (including the sale or consolidation of manufacturing facilities), increase the productivity of its plant infrastructure, and achieve additional efficiencies across its entire supply chain. In connection with the Capital Light initiative, Mattel recorded severance and other restructuring charges of
$11.5 million
during the three and six months ended
June 30, 2019
, with
$8.0 million
recorded within other selling and administrative expenses and
$3.5 million
recorded within cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations.
The following table summarizes Mattel's severance and other restructuring costs activity related to the Capital Light initiative for the six months ended June 30, 2019:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability at December 31, 2018
|
|
Charges
|
|
Payments/Utilization
|
|
Liability at
June 30, 2019
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Severance
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
7,971
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
7,971
|
|
Other restructuring costs (a)
|
—
|
|
|
3,483
|
|
|
(3,483
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
11,454
|
|
|
$
|
(3,483
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,971
|
|
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
Consists primarily of plant restructuring non-cash charges.
|
Mattel expects to incur total severance and restructuring charges, excluding non-cash charges, of approximately
$24 million
during 2019 related to the Capital Light initiative.
Mattel's
provision for
income taxes was
$12.2 million
and
$18.3 million
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, respectively, as compared to a
provision for
income taxes of
$6.9 million
and
$4.3 million
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2018
, respectively. During the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, Mattel recognized a
net discrete tax expense
of
$0.8 million
and
$2.3 million
, respectively, as compared to a net discrete tax benefit of
$2.3 million
and a net discrete tax expense of
$2.2 million
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2018
, respectively, primarily related to reassessments of prior years' tax liabilities and income taxes recorded on a discrete basis in various jurisdictions. As a result of the establishment of a valuation allowance on U.S. deferred tax assets in 2017, there was no U.S. tax benefit provided for U.S. losses during the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
and
2018
.
In the normal course of business, Mattel is regularly audited by federal, state, and foreign tax authorities. Based on the current status of federal, state, and foreign audits, Mattel believes it is reasonably possible that in the next twelve months, the total unrecognized tax benefits could decrease by approximately
$5 million
related to the settlement of tax audits and/or the expiration of statutes of limitations. The ultimate settlement of any particular issue with the applicable taxing authority could have a material impact on Mattel's consolidated financial statements.
Mattel adopted ASU 2018-02,
Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income: Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
on January 1, 2019
.
Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the "U.S. Tax Act"), deferred taxes were adjusted to reflect the reduction of the federal income tax rate to the newly enacted federal income tax rate, which left the tax effects on items within accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) stranded at historical tax rates. ASU 2018-02 permits the reclassification of disproportionate tax effects in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) caused by the U.S. Tax Act to retained earnings. Mattel elected not to reclassify income tax effects related to the U.S. Tax Act out of accumulated other comprehensive loss and into retained earnings. Mattel releases tax effects from accumulated other comprehensive loss utilizing the portfolio approach with respect to pension and postretirement benefit plan obligations.
Litigation Related to Carter Bryant and MGA Entertainment, Inc.
In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel design employee. The suit alleges that Bryant aided and assisted a Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"), during the time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his contractual and other duties to Mattel. In September 2004, Bryant asserted counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in which Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its employees. Bryant also removed Mattel's suit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In December 2004, MGA intervened as a party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the litigation.
Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action sought a judicial declaration that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating Bratz.
In April 2005, MGA filed suit against Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. MGA's action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The suit alleges, among other things, that certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for various MGA product lines, including Bratz. The complaint also asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations, purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA. MGA's suit alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.
In June 2006, the
three
cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.
On January 12, 2007, Mattel filed an Amended Complaint setting forth counterclaims that included additional claims against Bryant as well as claims for copyright infringement, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair competition, among others, against MGA, its Chief Executive Officer Isaac Larian, certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee. The RICO claim alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by recruiting and hiring key Mattel employees and directing them to bring with them Mattel confidential and proprietary information, unfairly competed against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets, confidential information, and key employees to build their business.
Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and whether MGA infringed those works. On May 19, 2008, Bryant reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a defendant in the litigation. In the public stipulation entered by Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement, including the Court's summary judgment rulings.
The first phase of the first trial resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008 in favor of Mattel. The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their own use. The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian, and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded Mattel total damages of approximately
$100 million
against the defendants. On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name. The Court stayed its December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until further order of the Court.
The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's damages award to Mattel. Mattel additionally moved for the appointment of a receiver. On April 27, 2009, the Court entered an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe Mattel's copyrights. The Court also upheld the jury's award of damages in the amount of
$100 million
and ordered an accounting of post-trial Bratz sales. The Court further vacated the stay of the December 3, 2008 orders.
MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to be issued by the Ninth Circuit. On July 22, 2010, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court's equitable orders. The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion-if not all-of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.
In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention Agreement unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it should have been up to the jury to decide. The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself, whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz designs and sculpt was outside of his employment. The Court then went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt. The Ninth Circuit stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin" copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection, however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of Bryant's sketches. This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar to Bryant's original sketches.
Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was transferred to Judge David O. Carter. After the transfer, Judge Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those counterclaims.
Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and wrongful injunction. MGA alleged, in summary, that, for more than a decade dating back to 1992, Mattel employees engaged in a pattern of stealing alleged trade secret information from competitors "toy fair" showrooms, and then sought to conceal that alleged misconduct. Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's motives for filing suit. The Court granted that motion as to the wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice, and as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck. The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.
The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010. Among other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims; dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.
Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011. During the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion. The Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.
The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011. In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and for misappropriation of trade secrets. The jury ruled for MGA on its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to
26
of its claimed trade secrets and awarded
$88.5 million
in damages. The jury ruled against MGA as to
88
of its claimed trade secrets. The jury found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.
In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions. The Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade secrets claim. The Court reduced the jury's damages award of
$88.5 million
to
$85.0 million
. The Court awarded MGA an additional
$85.0 million
in punitive damages and approximately
$140 million
in attorney's fees and costs. The Court entered a judgment which totaled approximately
$310 million
in favor of MGA.
On August 11, 2011, Mattel appealed the judgment, challenging on appeal the entirety of the District Court's monetary award in favor of MGA, including both the award of
$170 million
in damages for alleged trade secret misappropriation and approximately
$140 million
in attorney's fees and costs. On January 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Mattel's appeal. In that ruling, the Court found that MGA's claim for trade secrets misappropriation was not compulsory to any Mattel claim and could not be filed as a counterclaim-in-reply. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees and costs to MGA for prevailing on its trade secrets misappropriation claim, totaling approximately
$172.5 million
. It ruled that, on remand, the District Court must dismiss MGA's trade secret claim without prejudice. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court's award of attorney's fees and costs under the Copyright Act. Accordingly, Mattel recorded a litigation accrual of approximately
$138 million
during the fourth quarter of 2012 to cover these fees and costs.
Because multiple claimants asserted rights to the attorney's fees portion of the judgment, on February 13, 2013, Mattel filed a motion in the District Court for orders permitting Mattel to interplead the proceeds of the judgment and releasing Mattel from liability to any claimant based on Mattel's payment of the judgment.
On February 27, 2013, MGA filed a motion for leave to amend its prior complaint in the existing federal court lawsuit so that it could reassert its trade secrets claim. Mattel opposed that motion. On December 17, 2013, the District Court denied MGA's motion for leave to amend and entered an order dismissing MGA's trade secrets claim without prejudice. Also on December 17, 2013, following a settlement between MGA and certain insurance carriers, the District Court denied Mattel's motion for leave to interplead the proceeds of the judgment.
On December 21, 2013, a stipulation regarding settlement with insurers and payment of judgment was filed in the District Court, which provided that (i) Mattel would pay approximately
$138 million
, including accrued interest, in full satisfaction of the copyright fees judgment, (ii) all parties would consent to entry of an order exonerating and discharging the appeal bond posted by Mattel, and (iii) MGA's insurers would dismiss all pending actions related to the proceeds of the copyright fees judgment, including an appeal by Evanston Insurance Company in an action against Mattel that was pending in the Ninth Circuit. On December 23, 2013, Mattel paid the copyright fees judgment in the total sum, including interest, of approximately
$138 million
. On December 26, 2013, the District Court entered an order exonerating and discharging the appeal bond posted by Mattel, and on December 27, 2013, MGA filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. On December 30, 2013, Evanston Insurance Company's appeal in its action against Mattel was dismissed.
On January 13, 2014, MGA filed a new, but virtually identical, trade secrets claim against Mattel in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In its complaint, MGA purports to seek damages in excess of
$1 billion
. On December 3, 2014, the Court overruled Mattel's request to dismiss MGA's case as barred as a result of prior litigation between the parties. On July 31, 2017, Mattel filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that MGA's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. On February 13, 2018, the Court granted Mattel's summary judgment motion. Consistent with this ruling, the Court entered judgment for Mattel on March 8, 2018. On April 24, 2018, MGA filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment, and on December 20, 2018, MGA filed its opening appellate brief. On April 18, 2019, Mattel filed its responsive appellate brief, and on June 19, 2019, MGA filed its reply brief. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled. Mattel does not presently believe that damages in any amount are reasonably possible. Accordingly,
no
liability has been accrued to date.
Litigation Related to Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda.
Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda. (formerly known as Trebbor Informática Ltda.) was a customer of Mattel's subsidiary Mattel do Brasil Ltda. when a commercial dispute arose between Yellowstone and Mattel do Brasil regarding the supply of product and related payment terms. As a consequence of the dispute, in April 1999, Yellowstone filed a declarative action against Mattel do Brasil before the 15th Civil Court of Curitiba - State of Parana (the "Trial Court"), requesting the annulment of its security bonds and promissory notes given to Mattel do Brasil as well as requesting the Trial Court to find Mattel do Brasil liable for damages incurred as a result of Mattel do Brasil's alleged abrupt and unreasonable breach of an oral exclusive distribution agreement between the parties relating to the supply and sale of toys in Brazil. Yellowstone's complaint sought alleged loss of profits of approximately
$1 million
, plus an unspecified amount of damages consisting of: (i) compensation for all investments made by Yellowstone to develop Mattel do Brasil's business; (ii) reimbursement of the amounts paid by Yellowstone to terminate labor and civil contracts in connection with the business; (iii) compensation for alleged unfair competition and for the goodwill of trade; and (iv) compensation for non-pecuniary damages.
Mattel do Brasil filed its defenses to these claims and simultaneously presented a counterclaim for unpaid accounts receivable for goods supplied to Yellowstone in the approximate amount of
$4 million
.
During the evidentiary phase a first accounting report was submitted by a court-appointed expert. Such report stated that Yellowstone had invested approximately
$3 million
in its business. Additionally, the court-appointed expert calculated a loss of profits compensation of approximately
$1 million
. Mattel do Brasil challenged the report since it was not made based on the official accounting documents of Yellowstone and since the report calculated damages based only on documents unilaterally submitted by Yellowstone.
The Trial Court accepted the challenge and ruled that a second accounting examination should take place in the lawsuit. Yellowstone appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of the State of Parana (the "Appeals Court"), but it was upheld by the Appeals Court.
The second court-appointed expert's report submitted at trial did not assign a value to any of Yellowstone's claims and found no evidence of causation between Mattel do Brasil's actions and such claims.
In January 2010, the Trial Court ruled in favor of Mattel do Brasil and denied all of Yellowstone's claims based primarily on the lack of any causal connection between the acts of Mattel do Brasil and Yellowstone's alleged damages. Additionally, the Trial Court upheld Mattel do Brasil's counterclaim and ordered Yellowstone to pay Mattel do Brasil approximately
$4 million
. The likelihood of Mattel do Brasil recovering this amount was uncertain due to the fact that Yellowstone was declared insolvent and filed for bankruptcy protection. In February 2010, Yellowstone filed a motion seeking clarification of the decision which was denied.
In September 2010, Yellowstone filed a further appeal with the Appeals Court. Under Brazilian law, the appeal was de novo and Yellowstone restated all of the arguments it made at the Trial Court level. Yellowstone did not provide any additional information supporting its unspecified alleged damages. The Appeals Court held hearings on the appeal in March and April 2013. On July 26, 2013, the Appeals Court awarded Yellowstone approximately
$17 million
in damages, plus attorney's fees, as adjusted for inflation and interest. The Appeals Court also awarded Mattel do Brasil approximately
$7.5 million
on its counterclaim, as adjusted for inflation. On August 2, 2013, Mattel do Brasil filed a motion with the Appeals Court for clarification since the written decision contained clear errors in terms of amounts awarded and interest and inflation adjustments. Mattel do Brasil's motion also asked the Appeals Court to decide whether Yellowstone's award could be offset by the counterclaim award, despite Yellowstone's status as a bankrupt entity. Yellowstone also filed a motion for clarification on August 5, 2013. A decision on the clarification motions was rendered on November 11, 2014, and the Appeals Court accepted partially the arguments raised by Mattel do Brasil. As a result, the Appeals Court awarded Yellowstone approximately
$14.5 million
in damages, as adjusted for inflation and interest, plus attorney's fees. The Appeals Court also awarded Mattel do Brasil approximately
$7.5 million
on its counterclaim, as adjusted for inflation. The decision also recognized the existence of legal rules that support Mattel do Brasil's right to offset its counterclaim award of approximately
$7.5 million
. Mattel do Brasil filed a new motion for clarification with the Appeals Court on January 21, 2015, due to the incorrect statement made by the reporting judge of the Appeals Court, that the court-appointed expert analyzed the "accounting documents" of Yellowstone. On April 26, 2015, a decision on the motion for clarification was rendered. The Appeals Court ruled that the motion for clarification was denied and imposed a fine on Mattel do Brasil equal to
1%
of the value of the claims made for the delay caused by the motion. On July 3, 2015, Mattel do Brasil filed a special appeal to the Superior Court of Justice based upon both procedural and substantive grounds. This special appeal sought to reverse the Appeals Court's decision of July 26, 2013, and to reverse the fine as inappropriate under the law. This special appeal was submitted to the Appeals Court.
Yellowstone also filed a special appeal with the Appeals Court in February 2015, which was made available to Mattel do Brasil on October 7, 2015. Yellowstone's special appeal sought to reverse the Appeals Court decision with respect to: (a) the limitation on Yellowstone's loss of profits claim to the amount requested in the complaint, instead of the amount contained in the first court-appointed experts report, and (b) the award of damages to Mattel do Brasil on the counterclaim, since the specific amount was not requested in Mattel do Brasil's counterclaim brief.
On October 19, 2015, Mattel do Brasil filed its answer to the special appeal filed by Yellowstone and Yellowstone filed its answer to the special appeal filed by Mattel do Brasil. On April 4, 2016, the Appeals Court rendered a decision denying the admissibility of Mattel's and Yellowstone's special appeals. On May 11, 2016, both Mattel and Yellowstone filed interlocutory appeals.
On August 31, 2017, the reporting justice for the Appeals Court denied Yellowstone's interlocutory appeal. As to Mattel, the reporting justice reversed the fine referenced above that had been previously imposed on Mattel for filing a motion for clarification. However, the reporting justice rejected Mattel's arguments on the merits of Yellowstone's damages claims. On September 22, 2017, Mattel filed a further appeal to the full panel of five appellate justices to challenge the merits of Yellowstone's damages claims. Yellowstone did not file a further appeal.
In April 2018, Mattel do Brasil entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter, but the settlement was later rejected by the courts.
On October 2, 2018, the Appeals Court rejected Mattel's merits appeal, and affirmed the prior rulings in favor of Yellowstone. The actual amount to be paid by Mattel to Yellowstone has yet to be determined.
2017 Securities Litigation
A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, (consolidating Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel, Christopher A. Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and Joseph B. Johnson alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017. In general, the lawsuit asserts allegations that the defendants artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to the investing public about retail customer inventory, the alignment between point-of-sale and shipping data, and Mattel's overall financial condition. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' conduct caused the plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices. On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Mattel's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, and on June 25, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion informing the Court he would not be filing an amended complaint. Judgment was entered in favor of Mattel and the individual defendants on September 19, 2018. The plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2018 and his opening appellate brief on February 25, 2019. On April 26, 2019, Mattel filed its responsive appellate brief, and on June 17, 2019, plaintiff filed his reply brief. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.
In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Lombardi v. Sinclair, et al., filed December 21, 2017) making allegations that are substantially identical to, or are based upon, the allegations of the class action lawsuit. The defendants in the derivative action are the same as those in the class action lawsuit plus Margaret H. Georgiadis, Michael J. Dolan, Trevor A. Edwards, Frances D. Fergusson, Ann Lewnes, Dominic Ng, Vasant M. Prabhu, Dean A. Scarborough, Dirk Van de Put, and Kathy W. Loyd. On February 26, 2018, the derivative action was stayed pending further developments in the class action litigation.
The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs, and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.
2019 Securities Litigation
A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Wyatt v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed March 6, 2019) against Mattel, Ynon Kreiz, and Joseph J. Euteneuer alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period February 7, 2019 through February 15, 2019. In general, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to the investing public about Mattel's Structural Simplification Program and regarding prospects for
Barbie
and
Hot Wheels
in 2019. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' conduct caused the plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and/or costs. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.
Litigation Related to the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper
Sixteen purported class action lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper"). In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight sleep for infants. The class action lawsuits propose nationwide and statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep, and/or a class of all children who sustained an injury or death due to the alleged defective design of the Sleeper, and their parents.
Four additional lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper caused the fatalities of eight children. Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional plaintiffs who are threatening to assert similar claims.
The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.
Mattel designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of toy products worldwide, which are sold to its customers and directly to consumers.
Gross Sales
Although there were no changes to Mattel's commercial operations that impacted its operating segments, in the first quarter of 2019, Mattel modified its reporting structure for revenues, as outlined below, and reorganized its regional sales reporting structure within the International segment. Prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. Gross sales by categories are presented as follows:
Dolls
—including brands such as
Barbie
,
American Girl
,
Enchantimals
,
and
Polly Pocket.
Infant, Toddler, and Preschool
—including brands such as
Fisher-Price
and
Thomas & Friends
,
Power Wheels
,
Fireman Sam
, and
Shimmer and Shine
(
Nickelodeon
).
Vehicles
—including brands such as
Hot Wheels
,
Matchbox
,
and
CARS
(
Disney Pixar
).
Action Figures, Building Sets, and Games
—including brands such as
MEGA
,
UNO
,
Toy Story
(
Disney Pixar
),
Jurassic World
(
Universal
),
and
WWE
.
Segment Data
Mattel's operating segments are: (i) North America, which consists of the U.S. and Canada, (ii) International, and (iii) American Girl. The North America and International segments sell products across categories, although some products are developed and adapted for particular international markets.
The following tables present information about revenues,
income (loss)
, and assets by segment. Mattel does not include sales adjustments such as trade discounts and other allowances in the calculation of segment revenues (referred to as "gross sales" and reconciled to net sales in the tables below). Mattel records these adjustments in its financial accounting systems at the time of sale to each customer, but the adjustments are not allocated to individual products. For this reason, Mattel's Chief Operating Decision Maker uses gross and net sales by segment as metrics to measure segment performance. Such sales adjustments are included in the determination of segment
income (loss)
from operations based on the adjustments recorded in the financial accounting systems. Segment
income (loss)
represents each segment's operating
income (loss)
, while consolidated
operating loss
represents
loss
from operations before net interest,
other non-operating (income) expense, net
, and income taxes as reported in the consolidated statements of operations. The corporate and other expense category includes costs not allocated to individual segments, including charges related to incentive compensation, severance and other restructuring costs, share-based compensation, corporate headquarters functions managed on a worldwide basis, and the impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates on intercompany transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Revenues by Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North America
|
$
|
447,354
|
|
|
$
|
442,883
|
|
|
$
|
816,745
|
|
|
$
|
791,273
|
|
International
|
480,507
|
|
|
466,676
|
|
|
845,685
|
|
|
850,810
|
|
American Girl
|
34,405
|
|
|
44,561
|
|
|
79,962
|
|
|
112,048
|
|
Gross sales
|
962,266
|
|
|
954,120
|
|
|
1,742,392
|
|
|
1,754,131
|
|
Sales adjustments
|
(102,203
|
)
|
|
(113,372
|
)
|
|
(193,083
|
)
|
|
(205,011
|
)
|
Net sales
|
$
|
860,063
|
|
|
$
|
840,748
|
|
|
$
|
1,549,309
|
|
|
$
|
1,549,120
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Segment Income
(Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North America (a)
|
$
|
28,297
|
|
|
$
|
(25,940
|
)
|
|
$
|
6,712
|
|
|
$
|
(132,690
|
)
|
International (a)
|
(3,507
|
)
|
|
(49,740
|
)
|
|
(27,810
|
)
|
|
(122,005
|
)
|
American Girl (a)
|
(16,305
|
)
|
|
(16,222
|
)
|
|
(30,559
|
)
|
|
(31,065
|
)
|
|
8,485
|
|
|
(91,902
|
)
|
|
(51,657
|
)
|
|
(285,760
|
)
|
Corporate and other expense (b)
|
(59,901
|
)
|
|
(97,289
|
)
|
|
(130,718
|
)
|
|
(180,012
|
)
|
Operating loss
|
(51,416
|
)
|
|
(189,191
|
)
|
|
(182,375
|
)
|
|
(465,772
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
46,234
|
|
|
43,467
|
|
|
93,192
|
|
|
84,546
|
|
Interest (income)
|
(1,532
|
)
|
|
(1,699
|
)
|
|
(3,804
|
)
|
|
(4,846
|
)
|
Other non-operating (income) expense, net
|
(294
|
)
|
|
3,063
|
|
|
1,610
|
|
|
2,455
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
$
|
(95,824
|
)
|
|
$
|
(234,022
|
)
|
|
$
|
(273,373
|
)
|
|
$
|
(547,927
|
)
|
__________________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
Segment
income (loss)
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
included charges of
$3.1 million
and
$30.4 million
, respectively, attributable to the inclined sleeper product recalls
, substantially all of which was recorded in the North America segment
. Segment
income (loss)
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2018
included
$(7.0) million
and
$79.8 million
, respectively, of net sales reversal and bad debt expense, net attributable to the Toys "R" Us liquidation. Of the
$79.8 million
of charges recognized for the
six
months ended
June 30, 2018
,
$68.5 million
,
$9.6 million
, and
$1.7 million
was recorded in the North America, International, and American Girl segments, respectively.
|
|
|
(b)
|
Corporate and other expense included severance and restructuring charges of
$14.4 million
and
$23.1 million
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, respectively, and
$47.8 million
and
$72.7 million
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2018
, respectively, and share-based compensation expense of
$12.4 million
and
$24.3 million
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2019
, respectively, and
$8.0 million
and
$22.4 million
for the
three and six
months ended
June 30, 2018
, respectively.
|
Segment assets are comprised of accounts receivable and inventories, net of applicable reserves and allowances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
December 31,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Assets by Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
North America
|
$
|
622,614
|
|
|
$
|
591,273
|
|
|
$
|
615,654
|
|
International
|
677,958
|
|
|
692,341
|
|
|
728,870
|
|
American Girl
|
42,681
|
|
|
78,315
|
|
|
43,748
|
|
|
1,343,253
|
|
|
1,361,929
|
|
|
1,388,272
|
|
Corporate and other
|
134,839
|
|
|
133,423
|
|
|
124,700
|
|
Accounts receivable and inventories, net
|
$
|
1,478,092
|
|
|
$
|
1,495,352
|
|
|
$
|
1,512,972
|
|
The table below presents worldwide revenues by categories:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Revenues by Categories (a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dolls
|
$
|
273,405
|
|
|
$
|
266,632
|
|
|
$
|
526,291
|
|
|
$
|
523,989
|
|
Infant, Toddler, and Preschool
|
251,996
|
|
|
288,002
|
|
|
445,622
|
|
|
514,648
|
|
Vehicles
|
214,137
|
|
|
215,038
|
|
|
397,498
|
|
|
403,971
|
|
Action Figures, Building Sets, and Games
|
222,728
|
|
|
184,448
|
|
|
372,981
|
|
|
311,523
|
|
Gross sales
|
962,266
|
|
|
954,120
|
|
|
1,742,392
|
|
|
1,754,131
|
|
Sales adjustments
|
(102,203
|
)
|
|
(113,372
|
)
|
|
(193,083
|
)
|
|
(205,011
|
)
|
Net sales
|
$
|
860,063
|
|
|
$
|
840,748
|
|
|
$
|
1,549,309
|
|
|
$
|
1,549,120
|
|
__________________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
Mattel modified its reporting structure for revenues in the first quarter of 2019 to disclose revenues by categories.
|
The table below presents supplemental disclosure of worldwide revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Revenues by Top 3 Power Brands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barbie
|
$
|
186,531
|
|
|
$
|
170,733
|
|
|
$
|
350,009
|
|
|
$
|
323,424
|
|
Hot Wheels
|
175,199
|
|
|
167,306
|
|
|
325,735
|
|
|
312,246
|
|
Fisher-Price and Thomas & Friends
|
222,409
|
|
|
236,176
|
|
|
394,807
|
|
|
423,971
|
|
Other
|
378,127
|
|
|
379,905
|
|
|
671,841
|
|
|
694,490
|
|
Gross sales
|
962,266
|
|
|
954,120
|
|
|
1,742,392
|
|
|
1,754,131
|
|
Sales adjustments
|
(102,203
|
)
|
|
(113,372
|
)
|
|
(193,083
|
)
|
|
(205,011
|
)
|
Net sales
|
$
|
860,063
|
|
|
$
|
840,748
|
|
|
$
|
1,549,309
|
|
|
$
|
1,549,120
|
|
Geographic Information
The table below presents information by geographic area. Revenues are attributed to countries based on location of the customer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
For the Six Months Ended
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
June 30,
2019
|
|
June 30,
2018
|
|
(In thousands)
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North America
|
$
|
481,759
|
|
|
$
|
487,444
|
|
|
$
|
896,707
|
|
|
$
|
903,321
|
|
International (a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EMEA
|
234,107
|
|
|
219,525
|
|
|
450,456
|
|
|
449,069
|
|
Latin America
|
141,310
|
|
|
138,550
|
|
|
216,560
|
|
|
213,018
|
|
Asia Pacific
|
105,090
|
|
|
108,601
|
|
|
178,669
|
|
|
188,723
|
|
Total International
|
480,507
|
|
|
466,676
|
|
|
845,685
|
|
|
850,810
|
|
Gross sales
|
962,266
|
|
|
954,120
|
|
|
1,742,392
|
|
|
1,754,131
|
|
Sales adjustments
|
(102,203
|
)
|
|
(113,372
|
)
|
|
(193,083
|
)
|
|
(205,011
|
)
|
Net sales
|
$
|
860,063
|
|
|
$
|
840,748
|
|
|
$
|
1,549,309
|
|
|
$
|
1,549,120
|
|
__________________________________________
|
|
(a)
|
Mattel reorganized its regional sales reporting structure in the first quarter of 2019. As a result, the new regions are Europe, the Middle East, and Africa ("EMEA"), Latin America, and Asia Pacific. The Middle East, Africa, Russia, and Turkey were previously included in the Asia Pacific region (previously Global Emerging Markets) and are now included in EMEA (previously Europe). Prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.
|
|
|
24.
|
New Accounting Pronouncements
|
Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements
Mattel adopted the new lease standard on January 1, 2019 using the modified retrospective transition method. Prior periods were not retrospectively adjusted and continue to be reported under the accounting standards in effect for those periods, as further discussed in "
Note 5
to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Leases."
In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-12,
Derivatives and Hedging: Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities
, which expands the hedging strategies eligible for hedge accounting and changes both how companies assess hedge effectiveness and presentation and disclosure requirements. Mattel adopted ASU 2017-12 on January 1, 2019 and the adoption did not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
In February 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-02,
Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income: Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
, which permits the reclassification of disproportionate tax effects in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) caused by the U.S. Tax Act to retained earnings. Mattel adopted ASU 2018-02 on January 1, 2019 and the adoption did not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. For additional information, see "
Note 21
to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Income Taxes."
Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-13,
Fair Value Measurement: Disclosure Framework - Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement
, which modifies the disclosure requirements on fair value measurements, including the consideration of costs and benefits. ASU 2018-13 will become effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on January 1, 2020. The amendments on changes in unrealized gains and losses, the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements, and the narrative description of measurement uncertainty will be applied prospectively for only the most recent interim or annual period presented in the initial fiscal year of adoption. All other amendments will be applied retrospectively to all periods presented upon their effective date. Early adoption is permitted. In addition, early adoption of any removed or modified disclosures, but delayed adoption of any additional disclosures until their effective date, is permitted. Mattel is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2018-13 on its consolidated financial statements.
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-14,
Compensation - Retirement Benefits - Defined Benefit Plans - General: Disclosure Framework - Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Defined Benefit Plans
, which modifies the disclosure requirements for employers that sponsor defined benefit pension or other postretirement plans. ASU 2018-14 will become effective for the fiscal year beginning on January 1, 2021. Early adoption is permitted and the amendments will be applied retrospectively to all periods presented. Mattel is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2018-14 on its consolidated financial statements.
In October 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-17,
Consolidation: Targeted Improvements to Related Party Guidance for Variable Interest Entities
, which improves the accounting for variable interest entities by considering indirect interests held through related parties under common control for determining whether fees paid to decision makers and service providers are variable interests. ASU 2018-17 will become effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on January 1, 2020. Early adoption is permitted. The amendments should be applied retrospectively with a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings at the beginning of the earliest period presented. Mattel is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2018-17 on its consolidated financial statements.
In April 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-04,
Codification Improvements to Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, Derivatives and Hedging, and Financial Instruments
, which clarifies and improves guidance related to the recently issued standards on credit losses, hedging, and recognition and measurement of financial instruments. ASU 2019-04 will become effective for the fiscal year beginning on January 1, 2020 and early adoption is permitted. Amendments related to equity securities without readily determinable fair values require prospective application. Amendments related to the codification improvements to ASU 2017-12 are permitted to be either retrospectively applied as of the date of adoption of ASU 2017-02 or applied prospectively beginning January 1, 2020. All other amendments will be applied on a modified-retrospective transition method. Mattel is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2019-04 on its consolidated financial statements.