NOTE 16. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL MATTERS

As a consumer goods manufacturer and distributor, the Company faces the risk of product liability and related lawsuits involving claims for substantial money damages, product recall actions and higher than anticipated rates of warranty returns or other returns of goods. The Company is therefore vulnerable to various personal injury and property damage lawsuits relating to its products and incidental to its business.

The Company is involved in various legal disputes and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Anticipated costs related to litigation matters are accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that it is reasonably possible that the disposition of any of the legal disputes the Company or its subsidiaries is currently involved in will have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, except for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) matter discussed below. There is a reasonable possibility of loss from contingencies in excess of the amounts accrued by the Company in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets; however, the actual amounts of such possible losses cannot currently be reasonably estimated by the Company. It is possible that, as additional information becomes available, the Company may subsequently determine that it may incur losses from such contingencies materially in excess of the amounts initially accrued by the Company which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, stock price, consolidated financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows.

​

Legal expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business are included in selling, general, and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss) except as described below. See Part II, Item 1. “Legal Proceedings.”

​

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

In January 2021, Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd. (“BDEL”) wrote to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) outlining its new cradle solution for certain models of its avalanche beacon transceivers to prevent such transceivers from switching unexpectedly out of “send” mode. The proposed new cradle solution was designed to improve transceiver safety by locking the transceiver into “send” mode prior to use so that it would not switch unexpectedly out of “send” mode. BDEL also requested approval for the CPSC Fast-Track Program for a voluntary product recall to implement this cradle solution. The CPSC approved the recall and entered into a Corrective Action Plan agreement with BDEL in March 2021. BDEL received a letter from the CPSC, dated October 28, 2021, stating that the CPSC is investigating whether BDEL has timely complied with the reporting requirements of Section 15(b) of the Consumer Protection Safety Act and related regulations regarding certain models of avalanche transceivers switching unexpectedly out of “send” mode.

Separately, on April 21, 2022, BDEL filed a Section 15(b) report and applied for Fast-Track consideration for a voluntary recall, consisting of free repair or replacement of such malfunctioning models of avalanche transceivers, which would not switch from “send” mode to “search” mode due to an electronic malfunction in the reed switch or foil. The CPSC approved the recall and entered into a Corrective Action Plan agreement with BDEL in August 2022. BDEL received a letter from the CPSC, dated January 17, 2023, stating that the CPSC is investigating whether BDEL has timely complied with the reporting requirements of Section 15(b) of the Consumer Protection Safety Act and related regulations regarding the malfunction in the reed switch or foil in certain models of avalanche transceivers switching out of “search” mode. BDEL responded to the CPSC’s investigation by letter dated March 31, 2023, accompanied with documents responsive to the CPSC’s requests. The CPSC asked for further clarification and documents, and BDEL sent a responsive letter accompanied by additional documents on June 23, 2023. On September 6, 2023, the CPSC requested further clarification and information regarding the reed switch issue, to which BDEL responded on October 6 and 13, 2023.

By letters dated October 12, 2023 and December 18, 2023, BDEL was notified by the CPSC that the agency staff has concluded we failed to timely meet our statutory reporting obligations under the Consumer Product Safety Act with respect to certain models of BDEL’s avalanche transceivers switching unexpectedly out of “send” mode and certain models of BDEL’s avalanche transceivers not switching from “send” mode into “search” mode, that we made a material misrepresentation in a report to the CPSC, and that the agency staff intends to recommend that the CPSC impose civil monetary penalties of $16,135 and $9,000, respectively, for the two matters described above.

On November 20, 2023 and February 8, 2024, respectively, we submitted a comprehensive response disputing the CPSC’s findings and conclusions in the October 12, 2023 and December 18, 2023 letters, including the amount of any potential penalties. The CPSC ultimately disagreed with our position and the agency staff has restated their recommendation for the monetary penalties which the Company intends to strongly contest and vigorously defend against.

John C. Walbrecht, the former President of BDEL and the Company, received a letter from the CPSC dated June 25, 2024 alleging that in his personal capacity he knowingly violated the Consumer Product Safety Act by failing to timely report that the beacons in question contained a defect. The staff of the CPSC recommended a $5,000 fine against Mr. Walbrecht personally. Pursuant to the Company’s by-laws, the Company has agreed to indemnify Mr. Walbrecht and advance his legal fees, and he has provided an undertaking to the Company that the Company will be entitled to recover those expenses if it is ultimately determined that he was not entitled to indemnification.

Based on currently available information, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is probable, however, we cannot reasonably estimate on what terms or if this matter will be resolved. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, the Company recorded a liability of $2,500 representing the low end of the range of our estimated exposure. The Company does not have a better estimate of the loss; therefore the low-end of the range was recorded as an accrued liability during the first quarter of 2024 and a corresponding expense is included in legal costs and regulatory matter expenses in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss).

We believe it is reasonably possible that a change in our ability to estimate the amount of loss could occur in the near term and that the change in the estimate could be material. In addition, as this matter is ongoing, the Company is currently unable to predict its duration, resources required or outcome, or the impact it may have on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.  Any penalties imposed by the CPSC or other regulators, could be costly to us and could damage our business and reputation as well as have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, stock price, consolidated financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows. During the three months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company incurred legal expenses of $180 and $107, respectively, and during the six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company incurred legal expenses of $385 and $163, respectively, in efforts to resolve this matter. These legal expenses are included in legal costs and regulatory matter expenses in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss).

Clarus Corporation against HAP Trading, LLC and Harsh A. Padia

On September 23, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against HAP Trading, LLC and Harsh A. Padia (“HAP Trading”), seeking disgorgement of profits from transactions in the Company’s common stock and related derivative securities in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Clarus Corporation v. Caption Management, LLC, et al.    

On March 8, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Caption Management, LLC, Caption Partners II LP, Caption GP, LLC, William Cooper and Jason Strasser (“Caption Management”), seeking disgorgement of profits from transactions in the Company’s stock and related derivative securities in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

During the three months ended June 30, 2024, and 2023, the Company incurred legal expenses of $219 and $248, respectively, and during the six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company incurred legal expenses of $516 and $320, respectively, in the efforts to bring the cases against HAP Trading and Caption Management to trial. These legal expenses are included in legal costs and regulatory matter expenses in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss).

​

​