Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase Commitments In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve accordingly. When a potential loss reserve is recorded it is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. The total amount financed under the floor plan financing programs with repurchase obligations was $378,472 and $364,085 as of June 30, 2026 and 2025, respectively. Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. For fiscal year 2026, there were no repurchases of such inventory. For fiscal year 2025, the Company repurchased 22 units that were subject to the Company's repurchase agreement with M&T Bank ("Repurchase Agreement"), the lender under the floor plan financing for Tommy's Boats. For fiscal year 2024, the Company repurchased 17 units from a lender of one of its former dealers. The Company did not carry a reserve in fiscal year 2026 and 2025. The Company has collateralized receivables financing arrangements with a third-party floor plan financing provider for European dealers. Under terms of these arrangements, the Company transfers the right to collect a trade receivable to the financing provider in exchange for cash but agrees to repurchase the receivable if the dealer defaults. Since the transfer of the receivable to the financing provider does not meet the conditions for a sale under ASC Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing, the Company continues to report the transferred trade receivable in other current assets with an offsetting balance recorded as a secured obligation in accrued expenses in the Company's consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2026 and 2025, the Company had no financing receivables recorded in other current assets and accrued expenses related to these arrangements. Contingencies Product Liability The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers. The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company's products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 10 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and, except as disclosed below, believes there are no material product liability claims as of June 30, 2026 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Litigation Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at June 30, 2026 or June 30, 2025 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings Insurance Litigation MBI and its indirect subsidiary Boats LLC were defendants in the product liability case Batchelder et al. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, f/k/a Malibu Boats, Inc.; Malibu Boats West, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of Rabun County, Georgia, Civil Action Case No. 2016-CV-0114-C (the “Batchelder I Matter”), brought by, among others, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan Paul Batchelder, deceased (“Batchelder I Plaintiffs”). Boats LLC was also a defendant in a related product liability case, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder, as Natural Guardians of Josh Patrick Batchelder, a minor; Darin Batchelder, individually, and as Natural Guardian of Zach Batchelder, a minor; and Kayla Batchelder (the “Batchelder II Plaintiffs” and, together with the Batchelder I Plaintiffs, the “Batchelder Plaintiffs”) v. Malibu Boats, LLC v. Dennis Michael Ficarra; Superior Court of Rabun County, Civil Action File No. 2022-CV-0034 (the “Batchelder II Matter” and, together with the Batchelder I Matter, the “Batchelder Matters”). On June 30, 2023, MBI and Boats LLC entered into a Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Batchelder Plaintiffs in settlement of the Batchelder Matters and all matters related to the Batchelder Matters. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, Malibu Boats, Inc., or Boats LLC, as the case may be, paid (or caused to be paid) to the Batchelder Plaintiffs and their agents a total of $100 million. MBI and its subsidiaries, including Boats LLC, maintain liability insurance applicable to the Batchelder Matters described above with coverage up to $26 million. As of June 30, 2026, the Company had received approximately $21 million in insurance coverage proceeds, subject in certain cases to reservations of rights by the insurance carriers. The Company contends that the insurance carriers are responsible for the entirety of the $100 million settlement amount and related expenses, and therefore, the insurers’ payments to date are well below what they should have tendered to Boats LLC. Accordingly, on July 3, 2023, Boats LLC filed a complaint against Federal Insurance Company (a Chubb subsidiary) and Starr Indemnity & Liability Company alleging that the insurers unreasonably failed to comply with their obligations by refusing, negligently, and in bad faith, to settle covered claims within their available policy limits prior to trial. On April 8, 2024, the court dismissed Starr, noting that only Chubb had the contractual right and duty to settle the Batchelder matters prior to trial. The Court subsequently granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgment, which precludes Chubb from apportioning liability to Starr. Chubb filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2024, with respect to the dismissal of Starr and the order granting partial summary judgment against Chubb. On March 12, 2026, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied both aspects of Chubb's appeal. On April 14, 2026, Chubb filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims against the insurance carriers to recover the full $100 million settlement amount and expenses (less any monies already tendered without reservation by the carriers). However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of such litigation. Tommy's Boats and Matthew Borisch On April 10, 2024, fifteen dealerships operated under common control of Tommy’s Boats (“Tommy’s Boats”) filed a complaint against MBI and its indirect subsidiary Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:24-cv-00166). The complaint alleges that MBI and Boats LLC breached obligations under dealership agreements with Tommy’s Boats, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and intentional and negligent misrepresentations relating to the parties’ commercial relationship. Tommy’s Boats sought monetary damages. Boats LLC took possession of 19 new model year 2024 boats according to a repurchase agreement with M&T Bank, the floor plan financing lender to Tommy’s Boats. These boats were subsequently resold during the three months ended September 30, 2024. On July 3, 2024, Mark E. Andrews, Chapter 11 Trustee (the “Trustee”) for Tommy’s Boats voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the claims filed by Tommy's Boats. On August 16, 2024, Matthew Borisch, the principal owner of Tommy’s Boats, filed a complaint against Malibu Boats Inc, Malibu Boats LLC, and Jack Springer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:24-cv-00339), alleging similar allegations to those of the dismissed complaint against MBI and Boats LLC filed by Tommy’s Boats. Mr. Borisch amended his complaint on October 29, 2024. On October 7, 2024, MBI and Boats LLC entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Trustee. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, MBI and Boats LLC agreed to pay the Tommy’s Boats’ estate $3.5 million in cash and MBI and Boats LLC and the Trustee agreed to mutual releases of all outstanding claims between them. The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on November 19, 2024. On May 22, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court determined that most of Mr. Borisch’s claims are property of the Tommy’s Boats bankruptcy estates and required Mr. Borisch to withdraw or dismiss such claims against MBI and Boats, LLC while finding that Mr. Borisch could assert certain potential claims against Malibu Boats, Inc. and Malibu Boats, LLC in his individual capacity. In consideration of the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, the Trustee agreed to cooperate with us in defense of Mr. Borisch’s claims. As a result of the Bankruptcy Court's determination and the Trustee's agreement to cooperate, on July 21, 2025, Malibu made the $3.5 million settlement payment to the Tommy’s Boats estate to consummate the Settlement Agreement. On July 11, 2025, Mr. Borisch sought leave to amend his complaint and has asserted that the remaining claims he has brought belong to him in his individual capacity. On September 2, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss Mr. Borisch’s complaint in its entirety. That motion is fully submitted and pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any claims alleged by Mr. Borisch. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss. Securities Class Action Lawsuit On April 29, 2024, a stockholder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against MBI and Jack Springer, Bruce Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-03254). On August 15, 2024, the Court appointed the Retiree Benefit Trust of the City of Baltimore as the Lead Plaintiff in the action. The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by MBI related to the Company's business, operations, and prospects during the period from November 4, 2022 through May 1, 2024 ("Class Period"). The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by not disclosing alleged material adverse facts related to the Company’s inventory, demand and relationship with one of its former dealers, Tommy’s Boats, and accordingly, that certain statements made during the Class Period about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading. On July 29, 2025, MBI and the individual defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the Lead Plaintiff. The settlement was approved by the Court on February 9, 2026 and, without admitting fault or liability, provided for a settlement payment amount of $7.8 million for the benefit of a settlement class comprised of all purchasers of MBI Securities during the Class Period. The settlement payment was fully funded with proceeds from MBI's directors and officers insurance carriers. On November 25, 2024, a stockholder, derivatively on behalf of MBI, filed a complaint against Jack Springer, Ritchie Anderson, Bruce Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former officers of the Company, as well as current and former members of the MBI Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-09018). On December 20, 2024, a second stockholder, derivatively on behalf of MBI, filed a complaint against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-09870). On January 7, 2025, these derivative actions were consolidated and stayed pending certain developments in the securities class action. On April 8, 2025, a third stockholder, derivatively on behalf of MBI, filed a complaint against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:25-cv-00142). On May 16, 2025, a fourth stockholder, derivatively on behalf of MBI, filed a complaint against the same defendants, except for Ritchie Anderson, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:25-cv-00223). On November 17, 2025, the third and fourth derivative actions were consolidated, and on November 20, 2025, the consolidated case was stayed pending certain developments in the securities class action. The derivative actions allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants in connection with the issues raised in the securities class action. On April 1, 2026, MBI and the stockholders reached an agreement in principle to settle all derivative actions. On July 15, 2026, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval in the consolidated action pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:25-cv-00142). The settlement contemplates certain corporate governance reforms by MBI and a payment of $850,000 in attorneys' fees from MBI to the stockholders' counsel, and is subject to Court approval. MBI anticipates that the settlement amount will be fully paid with proceeds from MBI's directors and officers insurance carriers. Delaware Charter Lawsuit On February 12, 2025, a stockholder (the “Gray Plaintiff”) filed a putative stockholder class action complaint, as subsequently amended on April 1, 2026, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”) against MBI, under the caption Gray v. Malibu Boats, Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0151-KSJM (the “Gray Action”), challenging a provision of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation concerning removal of directors from the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Removal Provision”). Without admitting any wrongdoing or that the Gray Plaintiff’s allegations had any merit, MBI represented to the Gray Plaintiff that no director of MBI shall be removed from his or her position pursuant to the Removal Provision. Believing the prompt resolution of the Gray Action to be in the best interest of MBI and its stockholders, MBI has, in its business judgment, also agreed to pay $75,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses to the Gray Plaintiff’s counsel (including a $500 service award to the Gray Plaintiff) in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Gray Action. On August 18, 2026, MBI and the Gray Plaintiff filed a stipulation, subject to approval by the Chancery Court providing for the closure of the case, subject to and upon the Company filing an affidavit with the Chancery Court confirming that this notice has been issued and the Gray Plaintiff filing a voluntary dismissal of the Gray Action, with prejudice only as to the Gray Plaintiff and without prejudice as to any other putative class member. The Chancery Court has not been asked to review or pass judgment on the payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses or their reasonableness. Customer Class Action Lawsuit On May 31, 2024, a customer filed a class action complaint against MBI and Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. (Case 1:24-cv-00648). The complaint, which purports to be filed on behalf of a nationwide class of customers, alleges violation of common law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act based on guidance issued to customers of certain older model boats related to riding in the bow area of those boats. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss. Product Liability Lawsuit Subsequent to our fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, on July 17, 2026, Brad Knighton and Britney Knighton, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of O.K., a deceased minor child, and as guardians of O.B.K. and B.E.K., minors, filed a Complaint against Cobalt Boats, LLC, Malibu Boats, LLC, Malibu Boats Holdings, LLC, and Malibu Boats, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, in admiralty (Case No. 4:26-cv-02936-JD). The Complaint arises from a boating accident that occurred on July 19, 2023 involving a 2006 model year Cobalt 232 bowrider vessel and alleges that the vessel was defective due to inadequate warnings regarding hazards associated with occupancy of the vessel's open bow seating area under certain operating conditions. Plaintiffs assert claims for strict products liability (failure to warn), negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, wrongful death, survival, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and seek compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. No defendant has been served with process, and no defendant has filed a responsive pleading. The Company maintains product liability insurance that is applicable to this case. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.

In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve accordingly. When a potential loss reserve is recorded it is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. The total amount financed under the floor plan financing programs with repurchase obligations was $378,472 and $364,085 as of June 30, 2026 and 2025, respectively.

Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. For fiscal year 2026, there were no repurchases of such inventory. For fiscal year 2025, the Company repurchased 22 units that were subject to the Company's repurchase agreement with M&T Bank ("Repurchase Agreement"), the lender under the floor plan financing for Tommy's Boats. For fiscal year 2024, the Company repurchased 17 units from a lender of one of its former dealers. The Company did not carry a reserve in fiscal year 2026 and 2025.

The Company has collateralized receivables financing arrangements with a third-party floor plan financing provider for European dealers. Under terms of these arrangements, the Company transfers the right to collect a trade receivable to the financing provider in exchange for cash but agrees to repurchase the receivable if the dealer defaults. Since the transfer of the receivable to the financing provider does not meet the conditions for a sale under ASC Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing, the Company continues to report the transferred trade receivable in other current assets with an offsetting balance recorded as a secured obligation in accrued expenses in the Company's consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2026 and 2025, the Company had no financing receivables recorded in other current assets and accrued expenses related to these arrangements.

The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers.

The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company's products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 10 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and, except as disclosed below, believes there are no material product liability claims as of June 30, 2026 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at June 30, 2026 or June 30, 2025 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

LLC, f/k/a Malibu Boats, Inc.; Malibu Boats West, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of Rabun County, Georgia, Civil Action Case No. 2016-CV-0114-C (the “Batchelder I Matter”), brought by, among others, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan Paul Batchelder, deceased (“Batchelder I Plaintiffs”). Boats LLC was also a defendant in a related product liability case, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder, as Natural Guardians of Josh Patrick Batchelder, a minor; Darin Batchelder, individually, and as Natural Guardian of Zach Batchelder, a minor; and Kayla Batchelder (the “Batchelder II Plaintiffs” and, together with the Batchelder I Plaintiffs, the “Batchelder Plaintiffs”) v. Malibu Boats, LLC v. Dennis Michael Ficarra; Superior Court of Rabun County, Civil Action File No. 2022-CV-0034 (the “Batchelder II Matter” and, together with the Batchelder I Matter, the “Batchelder Matters”). On June 30, 2023, MBI and Boats LLC entered into a Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Batchelder Plaintiffs in settlement of the Batchelder Matters and all matters related to the Batchelder Matters. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, Malibu Boats, Inc., or Boats LLC, as the case may be, paid (or caused to be paid) to the Batchelder Plaintiffs and their agents a total of $100 million.

MBI and its subsidiaries, including Boats LLC, maintain liability insurance applicable to the Batchelder Matters described above with coverage up to $26 million. As of June 30, 2026, the Company had received approximately $21 million in insurance coverage proceeds, subject in certain cases to reservations of rights by the insurance carriers. The Company contends that the insurance carriers are responsible for the entirety of the $100 million settlement amount and related expenses, and therefore, the insurers’ payments to date are well below what they should have tendered to Boats LLC. Accordingly, on July 3, 2023, Boats LLC filed a complaint against Federal Insurance Company (a Chubb subsidiary) and Starr Indemnity & Liability Company alleging that the insurers unreasonably failed to comply with their obligations by refusing, negligently, and in bad faith, to settle covered claims within their available policy limits prior to trial. On April 8, 2024, the court dismissed Starr, noting that only Chubb had the contractual right and duty to settle the Batchelder matters prior to trial. The Court subsequently granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgment, which precludes Chubb from apportioning liability to Starr. Chubb filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2024, with respect to the dismissal of Starr and the order granting partial summary judgment against Chubb. On March 12, 2026, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied both aspects of Chubb's appeal. On April 14, 2026, Chubb filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims against the insurance carriers to recover the full $100 million settlement amount and expenses (less any monies already tendered without reservation by the carriers). However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of such litigation.

On April 10, 2024, fifteen dealerships operated under common control of Tommy’s Boats (“Tommy’s Boats”) filed a complaint against MBI and its indirect subsidiary Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:24-cv-00166). The complaint alleges that MBI and Boats LLC breached obligations under dealership agreements with Tommy’s Boats, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and intentional and negligent misrepresentations relating to the parties’ commercial relationship. Tommy’s Boats sought monetary damages. Boats LLC took possession of 19 new model year 2024 boats according to a repurchase agreement with M&T Bank, the floor plan financing lender to Tommy’s Boats. These boats were subsequently resold during the three months ended September 30, 2024. On July 3, 2024, Mark E. Andrews, Chapter 11 Trustee (the “Trustee”) for Tommy’s Boats voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the claims filed by Tommy's Boats. On August 16, 2024, Matthew Borisch, the principal owner of Tommy’s Boats, filed a complaint against Malibu Boats Inc, Malibu Boats LLC, and Jack Springer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:24-cv-00339), alleging similar allegations to those of the dismissed complaint against MBI and Boats LLC filed by Tommy’s Boats. Mr. Borisch amended his complaint on October 29, 2024.

On October 7, 2024, MBI and Boats LLC entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Trustee. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, MBI and Boats LLC agreed to pay the Tommy’s Boats’ estate $3.5 million in cash and MBI and Boats LLC and the Trustee agreed to mutual releases of all outstanding claims between them. The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on November 19, 2024. On May 22, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court determined that most of Mr. Borisch’s claims are property of the Tommy’s Boats bankruptcy estates and required Mr. Borisch to withdraw or dismiss such claims against MBI and Boats, LLC while finding that Mr. Borisch could assert certain potential claims against Malibu Boats, Inc. and Malibu Boats, LLC in his individual capacity. In consideration of the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, the Trustee agreed to cooperate with us in defense of Mr. Borisch’s claims. As a result of the Bankruptcy Court's determination and the Trustee's agreement to cooperate, on July 21, 2025, Malibu made the $3.5 million settlement payment to the Tommy’s Boats estate to consummate the Settlement Agreement.

On July 11, 2025, Mr. Borisch sought leave to amend his complaint and has asserted that the remaining claims he has brought belong to him in his individual capacity. On September 2, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss Mr. Borisch’s complaint in its entirety. That motion is fully submitted and pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any claims alleged by Mr. Borisch. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.

On April 29, 2024, a stockholder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against MBI and Jack Springer, Bruce Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-03254). On August 15, 2024, the Court appointed the Retiree Benefit Trust of the City of Baltimore as the Lead Plaintiff in the action. The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by MBI related to the Company's business, operations, and prospects during the period from November 4, 2022 through May 1, 2024 ("Class Period"). The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by not disclosing alleged material adverse facts related to the Company’s inventory, demand and relationship with one of its former dealers, Tommy’s Boats, and accordingly, that certain statements made during the Class Period about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading. On July 29, 2025, MBI and the individual defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the Lead Plaintiff. The settlement was approved by the Court on February 9, 2026 and, without admitting fault or liability, provided for a settlement payment amount of $7.8 million for the benefit of a settlement class comprised of all purchasers of MBI Securities during the Class Period. The settlement payment was fully funded with proceeds from MBI's directors and officers insurance carriers.

On November 25, 2024, a stockholder, derivatively on behalf of MBI, filed a complaint against Jack Springer, Ritchie Anderson, Bruce Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former officers of the Company, as well as current and former members of the MBI Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-09018). On December 20, 2024, a second stockholder, derivatively on behalf of MBI, filed a complaint against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-09870). On January 7, 2025, these derivative actions were consolidated and stayed pending certain developments in the securities class action. On April 8, 2025, a third stockholder, derivatively on behalf of MBI, filed a complaint against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:25-cv-00142). On May 16, 2025, a fourth stockholder, derivatively on behalf of MBI, filed a complaint against the same defendants, except for Ritchie Anderson, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:25-cv-00223). On November 17, 2025, the third and fourth derivative actions were consolidated, and on November 20, 2025, the consolidated case was stayed pending certain developments in the securities class action. The derivative actions allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants in connection with the issues raised in the securities class action. On April 1, 2026, MBI and the stockholders reached an agreement in principle to settle all derivative actions. On July 15, 2026, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval in the consolidated action pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case 3:25-cv-00142). The settlement contemplates certain corporate governance reforms by MBI and a payment of $850,000 in attorneys' fees from MBI to the stockholders' counsel, and is subject to Court approval. MBI anticipates that the settlement amount will be fully paid with proceeds from MBI's directors and officers insurance carriers.

On February 12, 2025, a stockholder (the “Gray Plaintiff”) filed a putative stockholder class action complaint, as subsequently amended on April 1, 2026, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”) against MBI, under the caption Gray v. Malibu Boats, Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0151-KSJM (the “Gray Action”), challenging a provision of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation concerning removal of directors from the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Removal Provision”). Without admitting any wrongdoing or that the Gray Plaintiff’s allegations had any merit, MBI represented to the Gray Plaintiff that no director of MBI shall be removed from his or her position pursuant to the Removal Provision. Believing the prompt resolution of the Gray Action to be in the best interest of MBI and its stockholders, MBI has, in its business judgment, also agreed to pay $75,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses to the Gray Plaintiff’s counsel (including a $500 service award to the Gray Plaintiff) in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Gray Action. On August 18, 2026, MBI and the Gray Plaintiff filed a stipulation, subject to approval by the Chancery Court providing for the closure of the case, subject to and upon the Company filing an affidavit with the Chancery Court confirming that this notice has been issued and the Gray Plaintiff filing a voluntary dismissal of the Gray Action, with prejudice only as to the Gray Plaintiff and without prejudice as to any other putative class member. The Chancery Court has not been asked to review or pass judgment on the payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses or their reasonableness.

On May 31, 2024, a customer filed a class action complaint against MBI and Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. (Case 1:24-cv-00648). The complaint, which purports to be filed on behalf of a nationwide class of customers, alleges violation of common law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act based on guidance issued to customers of certain older model boats related to riding in the bow area of those boats. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is

Subsequent to our fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, on July 17, 2026, Brad Knighton and Britney Knighton, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of O.K., a deceased minor child, and as guardians of O.B.K. and B.E.K., minors, filed a Complaint against Cobalt Boats, LLC, Malibu Boats, LLC, Malibu Boats Holdings, LLC, and Malibu Boats, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, in admiralty (Case No. 4:26-cv-02936-JD). The Complaint arises from a boating accident that occurred on July 19, 2023 involving a 2006 model year Cobalt 232 bowrider vessel and alleges that the vessel was defective due to inadequate warnings regarding hazards associated with occupancy of the vessel's open bow seating area under certain operating conditions. Plaintiffs assert claims for strict products liability (failure to warn), negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, wrongful death, survival, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and seek compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. No defendant has been served with process, and no defendant has filed a responsive pleading. The Company maintains product liability insurance that is applicable to this case. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.