MATTEL INC /DE/ - Quarter Report: 2015 March (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015

Commission File Number 001-05647

MATTEL, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(310) 252-2000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report):

NONE

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

Number of shares outstanding of registrant’s common stock, $1.00 par value, as of April 17, 2015:

338,339,448 shares

Table of Contents

MATTEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

2

Table of Contents

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

MATTEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

MATTEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

MATTEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE LOSS

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

MATTEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

6

Table of Contents

MATTEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 presentation of the financial position and interim results of Mattel, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“Mattel”) as of and for the periods presented have been included. 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 year-end balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements; however, the accompanying interim notes to the consolidated financial statements do not include all disclosures required by GAAP.

The financial information included herein should be read in conjunction with Mattel’s consolidated financial statements and related notes in its 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Accounts receivable are net of allowances for doubtful accounts of $28.1 million, $19.5 million, and $26.3 million as of March 31, 2015, March 31, 2014, and December 31, 2014, respectively.

Inventories include the following:

Property, plant, and equipment, net includes the following:

Goodwill is allocated to various reporting units, which are at the operating segment level, for purposes 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.

7

Table of Contents

The change in the carrying amount of goodwill by operating segment for the three months ended March 31, 2015 is shown below. Brand-specific goodwill held by foreign subsidiaries is allocated to the North America and American Girl operating segments selling those brands, thereby causing a foreign currency translation impact for these operating segments.

Acquisition of MEGA Brands Inc.

On April 30, 2014, Mattel acquired MEGA Brands Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada (“MEGA Brands”), pursuant to the Arrangement Agreement dated as of February 27, 2014, between MEGA Brands, Mattel Overseas Operations Ltd., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, Mattel-MEGA Holdings Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada (the “Purchasing Subsidiary”), and, with respect to certain provisions thereof, Mattel (the “Arrangement Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms set forth in the Arrangement Agreement, Mattel indirectly acquired, through the Purchasing Subsidiary, 100% of the issued and outstanding common shares and warrants of MEGA Brands for total cash consideration of $454.9 million, including payment for cash acquired of $31.6 million. The acquisition of MEGA Brands builds upon Mattel’s portfolio of brands by expanding into the construction building sets and arts and crafts categories.

The total purchase consideration was allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values. As a result of the acquisition, Mattel recognized $95.0 million of identifiable intangible assets (primarily related to trade names and existing product lines), $40.6 million of net assets acquired (which included $31.6 million of cash, $36.6 million of accounts receivable, $83.0 million of inventory, $32.5 million of property, plant, and equipment, $66.6 million of accounts payable and accrued liabilities, $44.6 million of long-term debt, and $31.9 million of other net liabilities), and $319.3 million of goodwill, which is not deductible for tax purposes. The fair values of the identifiable intangible assets related to trade names were based on the relief from royalty method, using Level 3 inputs within the fair value hierarchy, which included forecasted future cash flows, long-term revenue growth rates, royalty rates, and discount rates. The fair values of the identifiable intangible assets related to existing product lines were estimated based on the multi-period excess earnings method, using Level 3 inputs within the fair value hierarchy, which included forecasted future cash flows, long-term revenue growth rates, and discount rates. Goodwill relates to a number of factors built into the purchase price, including the future earnings and cash flow potential of the business, as well as the complementary strategic fit and the resulting synergies it brings to Mattel’s existing operations.

Mattel finalized the valuation of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the first quarter of 2015, which resulted in adjustments to the purchase price allocation during the measurement period. As such, Mattel has retrospectively adjusted the provisional amounts recorded in its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014 as if the valuation of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed was finalized as of the acquisition date. The retrospective adjustments resulted in an increase to net assets acquired of approximately $1 million and a decrease to goodwill of approximately $1 million.

During the three months ended March 31, 2015, Mattel recognized approximately $8 million of integration costs. Integration costs are recorded within other selling and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations. The pro forma and actual results of operations for this acquisition have not been presented because they are not material.

Other noncurrent assets include the following:

8

Table of Contents

In connection with the acquisition of MEGA Brands, as more fully described in “Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Goodwill” of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, Mattel recognized $95.0 million of amortizable identifiable intangible assets, primarily related to trade names and existing product lines.

Mattel tests nonamortizable intangible assets, including trademarks and trade names, for impairment annually in the third quarter and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying values may exceed the fair values. Mattel also 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.

Accrued liabilities include the following:

Mattel maintains and periodically amends or replaces its domestic unsecured committed revolving credit facility with a commercial bank group. The facility is used as a back-up to Mattel’s commercial paper program, which is used as the primary source of financing for the seasonal working capital requirements of its domestic subsidiaries. The agreement governing the credit facility was amended and restated on March 11, 2013 to, among other things, (i) extend the maturity date of the credit facility to March 12, 2018, (ii) increase aggregate commitments under the credit facility to $1.60 billion, with an “accordion feature,” which allows Mattel to increase the aggregate availability under the credit facility to $1.85 billion under certain circumstances, (iii) decrease the applicable interest rate margins to a range of 0.00% to 0.75% above the applicable base rate for base rate loans and 0.88% to 1.75% above the applicable LIBOR for Eurodollar rate loans, in each case depending on Mattel’s senior unsecured long-term debt rating, and (iv) decrease commitment fees to a range of 0.08% to 0.28% of the unused commitments under the credit facility.

The amended credit facility has a borrowing capacity of up to $1.60 billion over a term of five years. Prior to the amendment, the facility permitted Mattel to borrow up to $1.40 billion and had two years remaining to maturity. The proportion of unamortized debt issuance costs from the prior facility renewal related to creditors involved in both the prior facility and amended facility and borrowing costs incurred as a result of the amendment were deferred, and such costs will be amortized over the term of the amended facility.

Mattel is required to meet financial ratio covenants at the end of each quarter and fiscal year, using the formulae specified in the credit agreement to calculate the ratios. Mattel was in compliance with such covenants as of March 31, 2015.

The credit agreement is a material agreement, and failure to comply with the financial ratio covenants may result in an event of default under the terms of the credit facility. If Mattel were to default under the terms of the credit facility, its ability to meet its seasonal financing requirements could be adversely affected.

Long-term debt includes the following:

9

Table of Contents

In May 2014, Mattel issued $500.0 million aggregate principal amount of 2.35% senior unsecured notes due May 6, 2019 (“2014 Senior Notes”). Interest on the 2014 Senior Notes is payable semi-annually on May 6 and November 6 of each year, beginning November 6, 2014. Mattel may redeem all or part of the 2014 Senior Notes at any time or from time to time at its option, at a redemption price equal to the greater of (i) 100% of the principal amount of the notes being redeemed plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding the redemption date, and (ii) a “make-whole” amount based on the yield of a comparable US Treasury security plus 12.5 basis points.

Other noncurrent liabilities include the following:

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):

10

Table of Contents

The following table presents the classification and amount of the reclassifications from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) to the consolidated statements of operations:

Currency Translation Adjustments

Mattel’s reporting currency is the US dollar. The translation of its net investments in subsidiaries with non-US 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-US dollar functional currencies are translated into US 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 loss of $126.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015, primarily due to the weakening of the Euro and Brazilian real against the US dollar. Currency translation adjustments resulted in a net gain of $3.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014, primarily due to the strengthening of the Brazilian real, Australian dollar, and Indonesian rupiah against the US dollar, partially offset by the weakening of the Argentine peso.

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 March 31, 2015, March 31, 2014, and December 31, 2014, Mattel held foreign currency forward exchange contracts with notional amounts of approximately $1.21 billion, $1.86 billion, and $1.19 billion, respectively.

11

Table of Contents

The following table presents Mattel’s derivative assets and liabilities:

12

Table of Contents

The following tables present the classification and amount of gains and losses, net of tax, from derivatives reported in the consolidated statements of operations:

The net gain (loss) of $8.9 million and $(2.8) million reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss to the consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, are offset by the changes in cash flows associated with the underlying hedged transactions.

The net (loss) gain of $(54.2) million and $9.3 million recognized in the consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, are offset by foreign currency transaction gains and losses on the related hedged balances.

The following table presents information about Mattel’s assets and liabilities measured and reported in the financial statements at fair value 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:

13

Table of Contents

Mattel’s financial assets and liabilities measured and reported at fair value on a recurring basis include the following:

The following table presents information about Mattel’s auction rate security measured and reported at fair value on a recurring basis using significant Level 3 inputs:

Other Financial Instruments

Mattel’s financial instruments include cash and equivalents, accounts receivable and payable, short-term borrowings, and accrued liabilities. The fair values of these instruments approximate their carrying values because of their short-term nature and are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

14

Table of Contents

The estimated fair value of Mattel’s long-term debt, including the current portion, was $2.19 billion (compared to a carrying value of $2.10 billion) as of March 31, 2015, $1.66 billion (compared to a carrying value of $1.60 billion) as of March 31, 2014, and $2.18 billion (compared to a carrying value of $2.10 billion) as of December 31, 2014. 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. Certain of Mattel’s restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are considered participating securities because they contain 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 (loss) per common share for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014:

Mattel was in a net loss position during the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, 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.

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 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

15

Table of Contents

A summary of the components of net periodic benefit cost for Mattel’s defined benefit pension plans is as follows:

A summary of the components of net periodic benefit cost for Mattel’s postretirement benefit plans is as follows:

During the three months ended March 31, 2015, Mattel made cash contributions totaling approximately $8 million related to its defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans. During 2015, Mattel expects to make additional cash contributions of approximately $29 million, including approximately $22 million of expected lump sum benefit payments for its unfunded plans.

Mattel has various stock compensation plans, which are more fully described in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data–Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements–Share-Based Payments” in its 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Under the Mattel, Inc. 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 ten years from the date of grant. Both stock options and time-vesting RSUs generally provide for vesting over a period of three years from the date of grant.

Compensation expense, included within other selling and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations, related to stock options and RSUs is as follows:

As of March 31, 2015, total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested share-based payments totaled $73.3 million and is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.9 years.

Mattel uses treasury shares purchased under its share repurchase program to satisfy stock option exercises and the vesting of RSUs. Cash received for stock option exercises for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 was $2.4 million and $5.1 million, respectively.

16

Table of Contents

Other selling and administrative expenses include the following:

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 income to which they relate in the consolidated statements of operations. For hedges of intercompany loans and advances, which do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the gains or losses on the hedges resulting from changes in fair value as well as the offsetting transaction gains or losses on the related hedged items, along with unhedged items, are recognized in other non-operating income (expense), net in the consolidated statements of operations. Inventory purchase and sale transactions denominated in the Euro, British pound sterling, Mexican peso, Brazilian real, and Indonesian rupiah are the primary transactions that cause foreign currency transaction exposure for Mattel.

Currency transaction gains (losses) included in the consolidated statements of operations are as follows:

Mattel’s income tax benefit was $15.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 compared to an income tax provision of $1.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014. During the three months ended March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2014, Mattel recognized net discrete tax expense of $0.7 and $3.7 million, respectively, primarily related to reassessments of prior years’ tax liabilities based on the status of audits and tax filings in various jurisdictions around the world, settlements, and enacted tax law changes.

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 $8 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.

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.

17

Table of Contents

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.

18

Table of Contents

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.

19

Table of Contents

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. Mattel believes that MGA’s claim should be barred as a matter of law, and intends to vigorously defend against it. 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. In light of that ruling, Mattel believes that it is reasonably possible that damages in this matter could range from $0 to approximately $12.5 million. In addition, Mattel believes that if such damages are awarded, it is reasonably possible that pre-judgment interest, ranging from $0 to approximately $10 million, could be awarded. Mattel may be entitled to an offset against any damages awarded to MGA. Mattel has not quantified the amount of any such offset as it is not currently estimable. As Mattel believes a loss in this matter is reasonably possible but not probable, 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 15^th Civil Court of Curitiba – State of Parana (the “Trial Court”), requesting the annulment of its security bonds and promissory notes given to Mattel 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.

20

Table of Contents

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, as adjusted for inflation and interest. The Appeals Court also awarded Mattel approximately $7.5 million on its counterclaim, as adjusted for inflation. On August 2, 2013, Mattel 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’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. As a result, the Appeals Court awarded Yellowstone approximately $14.5 million in damages, as adjusted for inflation and interest. The Appeals Court also awarded Mattel approximately $7.5 million on its counterclaim, as adjusted for inflation. The decision also recognized the existence of legal rules that support Mattel’s right to offset its counterclaim award of approximately $7.5 million. Mattel 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. As soon as a new decision on this motion for clarification is rendered, Mattel will appeal the Appeals Court decision to both the Superior Court of Justice and the Federal Supreme Court (collectively, the “Superior Courts”), based on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Mattel believes that it is reasonably possible that a loss in this matter could range from $0 to approximately $14 million. The high end of this range, approximately $14 million, is based on the calculation of the current amount of the damages and loss of profits, including interest and inflation adjustments, reported in the first court-appointed examination report submitted in the lawsuit, plus attorney’s fees. Mattel do Brasil will be entitled to offset its counterclaim award of approximately $7.5 million, the current amount including inflation adjustment, against such loss. The existence of procedural matters that will be addressed to the Superior Courts adds some uncertainty to the final outcome of the matter. Mattel believes, however, that it has valid legal grounds for an appeal of the Appeals Court decision and currently does not believe that a loss is probable for this matter. Accordingly, a liability has not been accrued to date. Mattel may be required by the Trial Court to place a bond or the full amount of the damage award in escrow pending an appeal decision by the Superior Courts.

Mattel, through its subsidiaries, sells a broad variety of toy products which are grouped into four major brand categories, including the Construction and Arts & Crafts brand category, which was introduced in the second quarter of 2014:

Mattel Girls & Boys Brands—including Barbie^® fashion dolls and accessories (“Barbie”), Monster High^®, Disney Classics^®, Ever After High^®, Little Mommy^®, and Polly Pocket^® (collectively “Other Girls”), Hot Wheels^® and Matchbox^® vehicles and play sets (collectively “Wheels”), and CARS^®, Disney Planes™, BOOMco™, Radica^®, Toy Story^®, Max Steel^®, WWE^® Wrestling, Batman^®, and games and puzzles (collectively “Entertainment”).

Fisher-Price Brands—including Fisher-Price^®, Little People^®, BabyGear™, Laugh & Learn^®, and Imaginext^® (collectively “Core Fisher-Price”), Thomas & Friends™, Dora the Explorer^®, Mickey Mouse^® Clubhouse, and Disney Jake and the Never Land Pirates^® (collectively “Fisher-Price Friends”), and Power Wheels^®.

American Girl Brands—including My American Girl^®, BeForever™, and Bitty Baby^®. American Girl Brands products are sold directly to consumers via its catalog, website, and proprietary retail stores. Its children’s publications are also sold to certain retailers.

Construction and Arts & Crafts Brands—including MEGA BLOKS^®, RoseArt^®, and Board Dudes^®.

Mattel’s operating segments are: (i) North America, which consists of the US and Canada, (ii) International, and (iii) American Girl. The North America and International segments sell products in the Mattel Girls & Boys Brands, Fisher-Price Brands, and Construction and Arts & Crafts Brands categories, although some are developed and adapted for particular international markets.

Segment Data

        The following tables present information about revenues, income, 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 Part I, Item 2 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Non-GAAP Financial Measures” of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q). 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 sales by segment as one of the metrics to measure segment performance. Such sales adjustments are included in the determination of segment income from operations based on the adjustments recorded in the financial

21

Table of Contents

accounting systems. Segment income represents each segment’s operating income, while consolidated operating income represents income from operations before net interest, other non-operating income (expense), 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, share-based payments, and corporate headquarters functions managed on a worldwide basis, and the impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates on intercompany transactions.

Segment assets are comprised of accounts receivable and inventories, net of applicable reserves and allowances.

The table below presents worldwide revenues by brand category:

22

Table of Contents

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 605, Revenue Recognition, and most industry-specific guidance. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The new guidance establishes a five-step model to achieve that core principle and also requires additional disclosures about the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts. ASU 2014-09 will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Early application is not permitted. Mattel is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-09 on its operating results and financial position.

In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-12, Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period, which requires that a performance target that affects vesting and that could be achieved after the requisite service period be treated as a performance condition. ASU 2014-12 will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Early application is permitted. Mattel is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-12 on its operating results and financial position.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, which requires debt issuance costs to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the associated debt liability. ASU 2015-03 will not change the amortization of debt issuance costs, which will continue to follow the existing accounting guidance. ASU 2015-03 will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Early application is permitted. Mattel is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2015-03 on its operating results and financial position.

On April 16, 2015, Mattel announced that its Board of Directors declared a second quarter dividend of $0.38 per common share. The dividend is payable on June 12, 2015 to stockholders of record on May 22, 2015.

In the discussion that follows, “Mattel” refers to Mattel, Inc. and/or one or more of its family of companies.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial information and related notes that appear in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Mattel’s business is seasonal, with consumers making a large percentage of all toy purchases during the traditional holiday season; therefore, results of operations are comparable only with corresponding periods.

The following discussion also includes certain non-GAAP financial measures within the meaning of Regulation G promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Regulation G”) to supplement the financial results as reported in accordance with GAAP. The non-GAAP financial measures discussed below include gross sales, adjusted other selling and administrative expenses, adjusted operating (loss) income, adjusted (loss) earnings per share, and constant currency. Mattel uses these metrics to analyze its continuing operations and to monitor, assess, and identify meaningful trends in its operating and financial performance. These measures are not, and should not be viewed as, substitutes for GAAP financial measures. Refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for a more detailed discussion, including reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.

Factors That May Affect Future Results

(Cautionary Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995)

Mattel is including this Cautionary Statement to make applicable and take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Act”) for forward-looking statements. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Act. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They often include words such as “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “seeks,” “aims,” “estimates,” “projects,” “on track” or words of similar meaning, or future or conditional verbs, such as “will,” “should,” “could,” or “may.” A forward-looking statement is neither a prediction nor a guarantee of future events or circumstances, and those future events or circumstances may not occur. Investors should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. These forward-looking statements are all based on currently available operating, financial, economic, and competitive information and are subject to various risks and uncertainties. The Company’s actual future results and trends may differ materially depending on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the risks and uncertainties detailed in Part 1, Item 1A “Risk Factors” in Mattel’s 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Mattel expressly disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new developments or otherwise.

23

Table of Contents

Overview

Mattel designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of toy products worldwide which are sold to its customers and directly to consumers. Mattel is the owner of a portfolio of global brands with untapped intellectual property potential. Its products are among the most widely recognized toy products in the world. Mattel’s portfolio of brands and products are grouped into four major brand categories, including the Construction and Arts & Crafts brand category, which was introduced in the second quarter of 2014 with the acquisition of MEGA Brands:

Mattel Girls & Boys Brands—including Barbie fashion dolls and accessories (“Barbie”), Monster High, Disney Classics, Ever After High, Little Mommy, and Polly Pocket (collectively “Other Girls”), Hot Wheels and Matchbox vehicles and play sets (collectively “Wheels”), and CARS, Disney Planes, BOOMco, Radica, Toy Story, Max Steel, WWE Wrestling, Batman, and games and puzzles (collectively “Entertainment”).

Fisher-Price Brands—including Fisher-Price, Little People, BabyGear, Laugh & Learn, and Imaginext (collectively “Core Fisher-Price”), Thomas & Friends, Dora the Explorer, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, and Disney Jake and the Never Land Pirates (collectively “Fisher-Price Friends”), and Power Wheels.