Mattel (MAT)

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings.

See Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Litigation” and Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.”

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings.

See Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Litigation” and Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.”

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

Litigation Related to The Learning Company, Inc. (“Learning Company”)

Following Mattel’s announcement in October 1999 of the expected results of its Learning Company division for the third quarter of 1999, various Mattel stockholders filed purported class action complaints naming Mattel and certain of its present and former officers and directors as defendants.

These shareholder complaints were consolidated into two lead cases, one under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and the other under §14(a) of the Exchange Act. In November 2002, the United States District Court for the Central District of California permitted the actions to proceed as class actions.

Several stockholders filed related derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of Mattel. Some of the derivative suits were consolidated into one lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, which was dismissed for the plaintiff’s failure to make pre-suit demand on the board of directors. An appeal from that decision was dismissed in July 2003 by stipulation of the parties. Another derivative suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and was dismissed without prejudice in August 2002 in deference to the then-ongoing California derivative case. A third derivative suit, filed in federal court in the Central District of California, was dismissed in July 2002, and re-filed in November 2002 as part of the settlement described below.

In November 2002, the parties to the federal cases negotiated and thereafter memorialized in a final settlement agreement a settlement of all the federal lawsuits in exchange for payment of $122.0 million and Mattel’s agreement to adopt certain corporate governance procedures. The court granted final approval to the settlement in September 2003, and judgments were entered accordingly. On October 9, 2003, a group of persons purporting to be members of the §14(a) class filed a notice of appeal, challenging the manner in which the $122.0 million was allocated between the §10(b) class and the §14(a) class. On July 29, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s approval of the settlement.

Litigation Related to LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.

Fisher-Price, Inc. (“Fisher-Price”), a subsidiary of Mattel, was sued for patent infringement by LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. in a lawsuit filed in October 2003 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and in September 2004, Mattel was joined to the lawsuit as a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that Fisher-Price’s PowerTouch^™ system infringes a LeapFrog patent relating to an electronic learning device for teaching phonics. A 10-day trial commenced on May 16, 2005, which resulted in a deadlocked jury. As an alternative to retrying the case, the parties agreed to submit the case for decision, based on the current trial record, to the presiding judge. The parties are in the process of filing post-trial briefs, and the Court has not yet rendered a decision. The plaintiff in this lawsuit asserted a total damages claim of up to approximately $90 million, which has been reduced to approximately $58 million pursuant to rulings by the Court, and seeks an injunction preventing the further sale of the PowerTouch^™ system; the damages could possibly be trebled if the infringement is found to be willful. Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price believe the action is without merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves.

42

Table of Contents

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 seeks, as a putative class action representative, to invalidate Mattel’s Confidential Information and Propriety Inventions Agreements with its employees. Mattel has moved to dismiss Bryant’s counterclaims, which motion remains pending.

In December 2004, MGA intervened as a party-defendant in Mattel’s action against Bryant, asserting that its rights to the “Bratz” property are at stake in the litigation. Mattel’s suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it is currently pending.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action seeks 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.” Mattel has filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

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. Mattel believes the claims by Bryant and MGA are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Litigation Related to Cunningham

This suit was filed in September 1999 in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The two named plaintiffs, who purchased “limited edition” Barbie^® dolls, contended that Mattel’s use of the term “limited edition” on Barbie^® dolls was deceptive and fraudulent to consumers (and that it constituted a breach of contract and breach of express warranty) on the grounds that the dolls were not “true” limited editions and thus are not as valuable as they would be otherwise. Originally, the plaintiffs claimed that use of the terms “special edition,” “collector’s edition” and “exclusive” on Barbie^® dolls was also deceptive and fraudulent to consumers and constituted a breach of contract and breach of express warranty, but these claims were dismissed during motion practice.

43

Table of Contents

In 2003, a nationwide class of “all persons who have purchased limited edition Barbie^® dolls or Barbie^® dolls which were described, promoted or packaged as available only in small, limited amounts” was certified based on California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, as well as their breach of contract and breach of express warranty claims, were not certified for class action treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that the class suffered compensatory damages of at least between $100 million and $200 million, and sought punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief.

In January 2005, the Court issued an order decertifying the nationwide class in its entirety, without prejudice to the two named plaintiffs attempting to re-certify the class at a later date. On July 14, 2005, as a result of a settlement between Mattel and the two named plaintiffs, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. The lawsuit was settled for an amount that was not material to Mattel’s consolidated financial information for the three- and six-months ended June 30, 2005.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

Litigation Related to The Learning Company, Inc. (“Learning Company”)

Following Mattel’s announcement in October 1999 of the expected results of its Learning Company division for the third quarter of 1999, various Mattel stockholders filed purported class action complaints naming Mattel and certain of its present and former officers and directors as defendants.

These shareholder complaints were consolidated into two lead cases, one under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and the other under §14(a) of the Exchange Act. In November 2002, the United States District Court for the Central District of California permitted the actions to proceed as class actions.

Several stockholders filed related derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of Mattel. Some of the derivative suits were consolidated into one lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, which was dismissed for the plaintiff’s failure to make pre-suit demand on the board of directors. An appeal from that decision was dismissed in July 2003 by stipulation of the parties. Another derivative suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and was dismissed without prejudice in August 2002 in deference to the then-ongoing California derivative case. A third derivative suit, filed in federal court in the Central District of California, was dismissed in July 2002, and re-filed in November 2002 as part of the settlement described below.

In November 2002, the parties to the federal cases negotiated and thereafter memorialized in a final settlement agreement a settlement of all the federal lawsuits in exchange for payment of $122.0 million and Mattel’s agreement to adopt certain corporate governance procedures. The court granted final approval to the settlement in September 2003, and judgments were entered accordingly. On October 9, 2003, a group of persons purporting to be members of the §14(a) class filed a notice of appeal, challenging the manner in which the $122.0 million was allocated between the §10(b) class and the §14(a) class. On April 4, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard the appeal but has not yet rendered a decision.

Litigation Related to LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.

Fisher-Price, Inc. (“Fisher-Price”), a subsidiary of Mattel, was sued for patent infringement by LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. in a lawsuit filed in October 2003 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and in September 2004, Mattel was joined to the lawsuit as a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that Fisher-Price’s PowerTouch^™ system infringes a LeapFrog patent relating to an electronic learning device for teaching phonics. On April 7, 2005, the trial court issued a ruling regarding the construction of the words of the patent claim at issue. The case is set to be tried before a jury beginning on May 16, 2005. The plaintiff in this lawsuit is asserting a total damages claim of up to approximately $90 million, which could possibly be trebled if the infringement were found to be willful, and an injunction preventing the further sale of the PowerTouch^™ system. Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price believe the action is without merit and intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously.

36

Table of Contents

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 seeks, as a putative class action representative, to invalidate Mattel’s Confidential Information and Propriety Inventions Agreements with its employees. Mattel has moved to dismiss Bryant’s counterclaims, which motion remains pending.

In December 2004, MGA intervened as a party-defendant in Mattel’s action against Bryant, asserting that its rights to the “Bratz” property are at stake in the litigation. Mattel’s suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it is currently pending.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action seeks 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.” Mattel has filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

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. Mattel believes the claims by Bryant and MGA are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings.

See Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Litigation” and Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.”