As of October 1, 2022, the Company was a defendant in three (3) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits fall into two categories: traditional product liability litigation and municipal litigation. Each is discussed in turn below.

One lawsuit mentioned above involves a claim for damages related to an allegedly defective product due to its design and/or manufacture. The lawsuit stems from a specific incident of personal injury and is based on a traditional product liability theory such as strict liability, negligence, and/or breach of warranty.

The Company management believes that the allegations in this case are unfounded, that the incident is unrelated to the design or manufacture of the firearms involved, and that there should be no recovery against the Company.

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	9 Months Ended
Oct. 01, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	NOTE 13 — CONTINGENT LIABILITIES As of October 1, 2022, the Company was a defendant in three (3) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits fall into two categories: traditional product liability litigation and municipal litigation. Each is discussed in turn below. Traditional Product Liability Litigation One lawsuit mentioned above involves a claim for damages related to an allegedly defective product due to its design and/or manufacture. The lawsuit stems from a specific incident of personal injury and is based on a traditional product liability theory such as strict liability, negligence, and/or breach of warranty. The Company management believes that the allegations in this case are unfounded, that the incident is unrelated to the design or manufacture of the firearms involved, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. Municipal Litigation Municipal litigation generally includes those cases brought by cities or other governmental entities against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. There are two lawsuits of this type: The City of Gary case, filed in Indiana State Court in 1999, and Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson, et al., which was filed in August 2021. City of Gary The City of Gary Complaint seeks damages, among other things, for the costs of medical care, police and emergency services, public health services, and other services as well as punitive damages. In addition, nuisance abatement and/or injunctive relief is sought to change the design, manufacture, marketing and distribution practices of the various defendants. The suit alleges, among other claims, negligence in the design of products, public nuisance, negligent distribution and marketing, negligence per se and deceptive advertising. The case does not allege a specific injury to a specific individual as a result of the misuse or use of any of the Company's products. After a long procedural history, the case was scheduled for trial on June 15, 2009. The case was not tried on that date and was largely dormant until a status conference was held on July 27, 2015. At that time, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, for Defendants to answer, and for Defendants to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint by the deadline. In 2015, Indiana passed a new law such that Indiana Code §34-12-3-1 became applicable to the City's case. Defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting immunity under §34-12-3-1 and asking the court to revisit the Court of Appeals' decision holding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act inapplicable to the City's claims. On September 29, 2016, the court entered an order staying the case pending a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in KS&E Sports v. Runnels, which presented related issues. The Indiana Supreme Court decided KS&E Sports on April 24, 2017, and the City of Gary court lifted the stay. The City of Gary court also entered an order setting a supplemental briefing schedule under which the parties addressed the impact of the KS&E Sports decision on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. 14 Index A hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings was held on December 12, 2017. On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, but denying Defendants' request for attorney's fees and costs. On January 8, 2018, the court entered judgment for Defendants. The City filed a Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2018. Defendants cross-appealed the order denying attorney's fees and costs. Briefing in the Indiana Court of Appeals was completed on the City's appeal and Defendants' cross appeal on September 10, 2018. The Court of Appeals issued its ruling on May 23, 2019, affirming dismissal of the City's negligent design and warnings count on the basis that the City had not alleged that the Manufacturer Defendants' conduct was unlawful. However, the court reversed dismissal of the City's negligent sale and distribution and related public nuisance counts for damages and injunctive relief. The Manufacturer Defendants filed a Petition to Transfer the case to the Indiana Supreme Court on July 8, 2019. The Petition was denied on November 26, 2019. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. During the quarter ended April 3, 2021, the City initiated discovery and the Manufacturer Defendants reciprocated. Discovery is ongoing. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. was filed by the Country of Mexico and names seven defendants, mostly U.S.-based firearms manufacturers, including the Company. The Complaint advances a variety of legal theories including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, restitution, and others. Plaintiff essentially alleges that Defendants design, manufacture, distribute, market and sell firearms in a way that they know results in the illegal trafficking of firearms into Mexico, where they are used by Mexican drug cartels for criminal activities. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. On November 22, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Mexican Government's complaint based on the Government's lack of Article III standing, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act immunity, and lack of proximate cause. The Company, along with other non-Massachusetts defendants, also filed a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss based on lack of specific personal jurisdiction. The motions were fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on April 12, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the court entered an order granting the Defendants' joint Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Company's Rule 12(b)(2) motion was denied as moot, without prejudice. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 26, 2022. Summary of Claimed Damages and Explanation of Product Liability Accruals Punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims. In many instances, the plaintiff does not seek a specified amount of money, though aggregate amounts ultimately sought may exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For product liability claims made after July 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of $10 million annually, except for certain new claims which might be brought by governments or municipalities after July 10, 2000, which are excluded from coverage. The Company management monitors the status of known claims and the product liability accrual, which includes amounts for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast the outcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion of management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact on the Company's financial results for a particular period. Product liability claim payments are made when appropriate if, as, and when claimants and the Company reach agreement upon an amount to finally resolve all claims. Legal costs are paid as the lawsuits and claims develop, the timing of which may vary greatly from case to case. A time schedule cannot be determined in advance with any reliability concerning when payments will be made in any given case. 15 Index Provision is made for product liability claims based upon many factors related to the severity of the alleged injury and potential liability exposure, based upon prior claim experience. Because the Company's experience in defending these lawsuits and claims is that unfavorable outcomes are typically not probable or estimable, only in rare cases is an accrual established for such costs. In most cases, an accrual is established only for estimated legal defense costs. Product liability accruals are periodically reviewed to reflect then-current estimates of possible liabilities and expenses incurred to date and reasonably anticipated in the future. Threatened product liability claims are reflected in the Company's product liability accrual on the same basis as actual claims; i.e., an accrual is made for reasonably anticipated possible liability and claims handling expenses on an ongoing basis. A range of reasonably possible losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. However, in product liability cases in which a dollar amount of damages is claimed, the amount of damages claimed, which totaled $0.9 million and $1.1 million at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, are set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability the Company might be required to incur in these cases (regardless of the likelihood or reasonable probability of any or all of this amount being awarded to claimants) as a result of adverse judgments that are sustained on appeal.

Municipal litigation generally includes those cases brought by cities or other governmental entities against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. There are two lawsuits of this type: The City of Gary case, filed in Indiana State Court in 1999, and Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson, et al., which was filed in August 2021.

The City of Gary Complaint seeks damages, among other things, for the costs of medical care, police and emergency services, public health services, and other services as well as punitive damages. In addition, nuisance abatement and/or injunctive relief is sought to change the design, manufacture, marketing and distribution practices of the various defendants. The suit alleges, among other claims, negligence in the design of products, public nuisance, negligent distribution and marketing, negligence per se and deceptive advertising. The case does not allege a specific injury to a specific individual as a result of the misuse or use of any of the Company's products.

After a long procedural history, the case was scheduled for trial on June 15, 2009. The case was not tried on that date and was largely dormant until a status conference was held on July 27, 2015. At that time, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, for Defendants to answer, and for Defendants to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint by the deadline.

In 2015, Indiana passed a new law such that Indiana Code §34-12-3-1 became applicable to the City's case. Defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting immunity under §34-12-3-1 and asking the court to revisit the Court of Appeals' decision holding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act inapplicable to the City's claims.

On September 29, 2016, the court entered an order staying the case pending a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in KS&E Sports v. Runnels, which presented related issues. The Indiana Supreme Court decided KS&E Sports on April 24, 2017, and the City of Gary court lifted the stay. The City of Gary court also entered an order setting a supplemental briefing schedule under which the parties addressed the impact of the KS&E Sports decision on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Index

A hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings was held on December 12, 2017. On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, but denying Defendants' request for attorney's fees and costs. On January 8, 2018, the court entered judgment for Defendants. The City filed a Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2018. Defendants cross-appealed the order denying attorney's fees and costs.

Briefing in the Indiana Court of Appeals was completed on the City's appeal and Defendants' cross appeal on September 10, 2018. The Court of Appeals issued its ruling on May 23, 2019, affirming dismissal of the City's negligent design and warnings count on the basis that the City had not alleged that the Manufacturer Defendants' conduct was unlawful. However, the court reversed dismissal of the City's negligent sale and distribution and related public nuisance counts for damages and injunctive relief.

The Manufacturer Defendants filed a Petition to Transfer the case to the Indiana Supreme Court on July 8, 2019. The Petition was denied on November 26, 2019. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

During the quarter ended April 3, 2021, the City initiated discovery and the Manufacturer Defendants reciprocated. Discovery is ongoing.

Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. was filed by the Country of Mexico and names seven defendants, mostly U.S.-based firearms manufacturers, including the Company. The Complaint advances a variety of legal theories including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, restitution, and others. Plaintiff essentially alleges that Defendants design, manufacture, distribute, market and sell firearms in a way that they know results in the illegal trafficking of firearms into Mexico, where they are used by Mexican drug cartels for criminal activities. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

On November 22, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Mexican Government's complaint based on the Government's lack of Article III standing, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act immunity, and lack of proximate cause. The Company, along with other non-Massachusetts defendants, also filed a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss based on lack of specific personal jurisdiction. The motions were fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on April 12, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the court entered an order granting the Defendants' joint Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Company's Rule 12(b)(2) motion was denied as moot, without prejudice. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 26, 2022.

Summary of Claimed Damages and Explanation of Product Liability Accruals

Punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims. In many instances, the plaintiff does not seek a specified amount of money, though aggregate amounts ultimately sought may exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For product liability claims made after July 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of $10 million annually, except for certain new claims which might be brought by governments or municipalities after July 10, 2000, which are excluded from coverage.

The Company management monitors the status of known claims and the product liability accrual, which includes amounts for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast the outcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion of management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact on the Company's financial results for a particular period.

Product liability claim payments are made when appropriate if, as, and when claimants and the Company reach agreement upon an amount to finally resolve all claims. Legal costs are paid as the lawsuits and claims develop, the timing of which may vary greatly from case to case. A time schedule cannot be determined in advance with any reliability concerning when payments will be made in any given case.

Index

Provision is made for product liability claims based upon many factors related to the severity of the alleged injury and potential liability exposure, based upon prior claim experience. Because the Company's experience in defending these lawsuits and claims is that unfavorable outcomes are typically not probable or estimable, only in rare cases is an accrual established for such costs.

In most cases, an accrual is established only for estimated legal defense costs. Product liability accruals are periodically reviewed to reflect then-current estimates of possible liabilities and expenses incurred to date and reasonably anticipated in the future. Threatened product liability claims are reflected in the Company's product liability accrual on the same basis as actual claims; i.e., an accrual is made for reasonably anticipated possible liability and claims handling expenses on an ongoing basis.

A range of reasonably possible losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. However, in product liability cases in which a dollar amount of damages is claimed, the amount of damages claimed, which totaled $0.9 million and $1.1 million at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, are set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability the Company might be required to incur in these cases (regardless of the likelihood or reasonable probability of any or all of this amount being awarded to claimants) as a result of adverse judgments that are sustained on appeal.