Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Although the amount of any liability that could arise with respect to these actions cannot be determined with certainty, in the Company’s opinion, any such liability will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, consolidated results of operations or liquidity.

Shareholders Class Action: On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (“VTBH”) and the Company (f/k/a Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company (the “Merger”). Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company’s Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. On September 14, 2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada Supreme Court granted defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint but provided a limited basis upon which plaintiffs could seek to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company, as well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group, LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company’s Board of Directors. All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January 2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018. Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this ruling on April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court denied defendants’ writ petition without prejudice. The district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set trial for November 2019. On January 18, 2019, the district court certified a class of shareholders of the Company as of January 15, 2014. On October 11, 2019, the parties notified the district court that they had reached a settlement that would resolve the pending action if ultimately approved by the Court. On January 13, 2020, the district court preliminarily approved the settlement between the plaintiffs and all defendants. A final hearing was held on May 18, 2020, wherein the Court approved the settlement and entered final judgment.

On May 22, 2020, PAMTP LLC, which purports to hold the claims of eight shareholders who opted out of the class settlement described above, brought suit against the Company, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, Juergen Stark, Stripes Group, LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, Kenneth Fox, and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors in Nevada state court. This opt-out action asserts the same direct claims that were asserted by the class of shareholders described above. The defendants filed two motions to dismiss this complaint, which were heard on August 10, 2020. The Court denied those motions by order of August 20, 2020. The case was tried in August 2021 and all remaining defendants, including the Company, prevailed on all counts with final judgment entered in their favor on September 3, 2021. Plaintiff appealed that judgment. On June 6, 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in Defendants’ favor and subsequently denied Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing on July 22, 2024.

Insolvency Dispute in Germany: On February 15, 2024, TBC Holding Company LLC (“TBCH”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Turtle Beach Corporation, was served with a lawsuit that was brought to the German Higher Regional Court in Stade by the insolvency administrator of KJE Europe GmbH, a company registered and existing under the laws of Germany. In his complaint, the insolvency administrator claims that TBCH is liable to reimburse any payments received by the TBCH under a certain settlement agreement with KJE Europe GmbH dated June 30, 2020. On February 28, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the insolvency administrator holding that TBCH was liable for EUR 1.4 million plus interest and costs. TBCH continues to believe the claims do not have merit and has appealed the judgment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company has accrued for the potential impact of loss contingency.

Intellectual Property Dispute: PDP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Turtle Beach Corporation, has received a letter from OKYN Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Nyko Technologies (“Nyko”) claiming that PDP’s Ultra Slim Charge System for PlayStation 4 (“Ultra Slim”) infringes certain patents allegedly owned by Nyko. The Ultra Slim product is no longer being sold by PDP in the United States. To date, Nyko has not filed a lawsuit regarding its allegations. PDP is investigating the claims and will vigorously defend itself.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in the foregoing unresolved matters. However, litigation and investigations are inherently uncertain. Accordingly, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. The Company has not recorded any accrual at March 31, 2025 for contingent losses associated with these matters unless otherwise disclosed above based on its belief that losses, while possible, are not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The unfavorable resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. The Company is engaged in other legal actions, not described above, arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance, believes that the ultimate outcome of these other legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

Product Warranties

The Company warrants its products against certain manufacturing and other defects. These product warranties are provided for specific periods of time depending on the nature of the product. Warranties are generally fulfilled by replacing defective products with new products. The following table provides the changes in our product warranties, which are included in other current liabilities (in thousands):

Indemnifications

The Company indemnifies certain suppliers and customers for losses arising from matters such as intellectual property disputes and

product safety defects, subject to certain restrictions. The scope of these indemnities varies, but in some instances includes indemnification for

damages and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. As of March 31, 2025, no material amounts have been accrued for indemnification

provisions. The Company does not believe, based on historical experience and information currently available, that it is probable that any

material amounts will be required to be paid under its indemnification arrangements.

The Company also indemnifies its current and former directors and certain current and former officers. Certain costs incurred for providing

such indemnification may be recoverable under various insurance policies. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the maximum

amount that could be payable under these arrangements because these exposures are not capped, the obligations are conditional in nature, and

the facts and circumstances involved in any situation that might arise are variable.