Commitments and Contingencies (a) David Buehring, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., Scott L. Thompson, and Barry A. Hytinen, filed March 24, 2017. On March 24, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International, Inc., and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased Tempur Sealy common stock between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its then existing and future financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company does not believe the claims have merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. A Motion to Dismiss the case was filed by the Company on October 5, 2017. The case is in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of the case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Companys financial position or results of operations. (b) Myla Gardner v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 10, 2017; Joseph L. Doherty v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 20, 2017; and Paul Onesti v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 21, 2017. During July 2017, three putative shareholder derivative suits were filed against the Company, each member of its Board of Directors and two of its officers. Each complaint alleges that the Board of Directors and officers caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, which was a violation of the fiduciary duties they owed to the Company. The Company does not believe any of the suits have merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in each case. The Plaintiffs in each of the cases have agreed to stay their respective actions until after a decision is rendered on the Motion to Dismiss in the Buehring action noted above. These cases are in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of each case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. (c) Mattress Firm, Inc. v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC and Sealy Mattress Company, filed March 30, 2017, and a related matter. On March 30, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur-Pedic and Sealy Mattress ( two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company) in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the "Texas State Court Case") by Mattress Firm. The complaint alleges breach of contract and tortious interference and seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of its agreements with the Company. On April 7, 2017, the Company's subsidiaries named above filed suit against Mattress Firm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Federal Court Case") seeking injunctive relief and damages for trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act, and breach of contract and other state law violations. The complaint alleges that Mattress Firm violated the parties' transition agreements dated January 30, 2017, and consequently, federal and state law, by its use of the Companys trademarks after April 3, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the complaint was amended to add a claim by Sealy Mattress for nonpayment by Mattress Firm for products sold and delivered. On May 23, 2017, the complaint was further amended to add allegations that Mattress Firm continued to use the Companys trade names and trademarks on its website and in advertising in an inappropriate manner. On July 11, 2017, the Court in the Federal Court Case issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Mattress Firm from using the Companys names and marks in such manner. Discovery is complete in the Federal Court Case, and Motions for Summary Judgment on certain claims filed by both parties in early 2018 were ruled on by the court during June and July 2018. A trial date was set for October 10, 2018, but all Mattress Firm litigation was stayed on October 5, 2018 when Mattress Firm filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Company expects the Federal Court Case to continue to trial upon Mattress Firm's exit from bankruptcy. The discovery period in the Texas State Court case was extended, and the trial date initially set for September 2018 was reset for early 2019. Discovery was proceeding in the case until Mattress Firm's bankruptcy filing on October 5, 2018 when the litigation was stayed. The Company expects discovery to be restarted in the Texas State Court Case and for it to proceed to trial following Mattress Firm's exit from bankruptcy. The Company does not believe the claims asserted by Mattress Firm in either case have merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The outcomes of the cases remain unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Companys financial position or results of operations. (d) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal and administrative proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such other pending proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.