THE CORPORATE LIBRARY

Related Party Transactions and Outside Related Director Information

JAKKS Pacific, Incorporated (JAKK)

8/5/2005 Proxy Information

One of our directors, Murray L. Skala, is a partner in the law firm of Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala, Bass & Rhine LLP, which has performed, and is expected to continue to perform, legal services for us. In 2004, we incurred approximately $4,281,292 for legal fees and $584,648 for reimbursable expenses payable to that firm. As of December 31, 2003 and 2004, legal fees and reimbursable expenses of $721,837 and $1,309,829, respectively, were payable to this law firm.

Legal Proceedings

On October 19, 2004, we were named as defendants in a lawsuit commenced by WWE in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning our toy licenses with WWE and the video game license between WWE and the joint venture company operated by THQ and us, encaptioned World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al., 1:04-CV-08223-KMK (the “WWE Action”). The complaint also named as defendants THQ, the joint venture, certain of our foreign subsidiaries, Jack Friedman (our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Stephen Berman (our Chief Operating Officer, President and Secretary and a member of our Board of Directors), Joel Bennett (our Chief Financial Officer), Stanley Shenker and Associates, Inc., Bell Licensing, LLC, Stanley Shenker and James Bell.

WWE is seeking treble, punitive and other damages (including disgorgement of profits) in an undisclosed amount and a declaration that the video game license with the joint venture, which is scheduled to expire in 2009 (subject to the joint venture’s right to extend that license for an additional five years), and an amendment to our toy licenses with WWE, which are scheduled to expire in 2009, are void and unenforceable. This action alleged violations by the defendants of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”) and the anti-bribery provisions of the Robinson-Patman Act, and various claims under state law.

On February 16, 2005, we filed a motion to dismiss the WWE Action. On March 30, 2005, the day before WWE’s opposition to our motion was due, WWE filed an amended complaint seeking, among other things, to add the Chief Executive Officer of THQ as a defendant and to add a claim under the Sherman Act. On March 31, 2005, the WWE sent a letter to the Court proposing, inter alia, a briefing schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 6, 2005, the Court denied WWE’s application, ordered WWE to identify how the amended complaint responds to the dispositive motions raised by defendants, and ordered the parties to appear at a conference on April 27, 2005. At the conference, the Court ordered that by May 6, 2005, WWE was to identify how the amended complaint responded to the dispositive motions raised by defendants and to address whether costs should be assessed in connection with legal work required of defendants in these circumstances. WWE filed its letter on May 6, 2005; we responded on May 13, 2005; and WWE replied to that response on May 23, 2005. A court conference has been scheduled for August 18, 2005.

In November 2004, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: (1) Garcia v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-8807 (filed on November 5, 2004, (2) Jonco Investors, LLC v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-9021 (filed on November 16, 2004), (3) Kahn v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-8910 (filed on November 10, 2004), (4) Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-8877 (filed on November 9, 2004), and (5) Irvine v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-9078 (filed on November 16, 2004) (the “Class Actions”). The complaints in the Class Actions allege that defendants issued positive statements concerning increasing sales of our WWE licensed products which were false and misleading because the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern of commercial bribery, our relationship with the WWE was being negatively impacted by the WWE’s contentions and there was an increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or nullification of the licensing agreements with us. Plaintiffs also allege that we misleadingly failed to disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained through an unlawful bribery scheme. The Class Actions seek compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants (namely the Company and Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett), and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett. On January 25, 2005, the Court consolidated the Class Actions under the caption In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807. On May 11, 2005, the Court appointed co-lead counsels and provided until July 11, 2005, for an amended complaint to be filed; until September 9, 2005 for a motion to dismiss to be filed; until November 8, 2005 for opposition to be filed; and until December 8, 2005 for a reply to be filed. On July 11, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between December 3, 1999 and October 19, 2004.

We believe that the claims in the WWE Action and the Class Actions are without merit and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because these Actions are in their preliminary stages, we cannot assure you as to the outcome of the Actions, nor can we estimate the range of our potential losses.

On December 2, 2004, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Southern District of New York by Freeport Partner, LLC against us, nominally, and against Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett, Freeport Partners v. Friedman, et al., Civil Action No. 04-9441 (the “Derivative Action”). The Derivative Action seeks to hold the individual defendants liable for damages allegedly caused to us by their actions and in particular to hold them liable on a contribution theory with respect to any liability we incur in connection with the Class Actions. On or about February 10, 2005, a second shareholder derivative action was filed in the Southern District of New York by David Oppenheim against us, nominally, and against Messrs. Friedman, Berman, Bennett, Blatte, Glick, Miller and Skala, Civil Action 05-2046 (the “Second Derivative Action”). The Second Derivative Action seeks to hold the individual defendants liable for damages allegedly caused to us by their actions as a result of alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. On or about March 16, 2005, a third shareholder derivative action was filed. It is captioned Warr v. Friedman, Berman, Bennett, Blatte, Glick, Miller, Skala, and Jakks (as a nominal defendant), and it was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Third Derivative Action”). The Third Derivative Action seeks to hold the individual defendants liable for (1) damages allegedly caused to us by their alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment; and (2) restitution to us of profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by them. Stays and/or extensions of time to respond have been negotiated with plaintiffs’ counsel in the derivative actions, but plaintiffs’ counsel in the Second Derivative Action and the Third Derivative Action have the right to terminate the stay and/or refuse to renew the extension of the time to respond.

On March 1, 2005, we delivered a Notice of Breach of Settlement Agreement and Demand for Indemnification to WWE (the “Notification”). The Notification asserted that WWE’s filing of the WWE Action violated A Covenant Not to Sue contained in a January 15, 2004 Settlement Agreement and General Release (“General Release”) entered into between WWE and us and, therefore, that we were demanding indemnification, pursuant to the Indemnification provision contained in the General Release, for all losses that the WWE’s actions have caused or will cause to us and our officers, including but not limited to any losses sustained by us in connection with the Class Actions. On March 4, 2005, in a letter from its outside counsel, WWE asserted that the General Release does not cover the claims in the WWE Action.

We are a party to, and certain of our property is the subject of, various other pending claims and legal proceedings that routinely arise in the ordinary course of our business, but we do not believe that any of these claims or proceedings will have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

8/9/2004 Proxy Information

One of our directors, Murray L. Skala, is a partner in the law firm of Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala, Bass & Rhine LLP, which has performed, and is expected to continue to perform, legal services for us. In 2003, we incurred approximately $3,116,866 for legal fees and $525,559 for reimbursable expenses payable to that firm. As of December 31, 2002 and 2003, legal fees and reimbursable expenses of $656,724 and $721,837, respectively, were payable to this law firm.

7/30/2003 Proxy Information

One of our directors, Murray L. Skala, is a partner in the law firm of Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala, Bass & Rhine LLP, which has performed, and is expected to continue to perform, legal services for us.

In 2002, we incurred approximately $2,326,000 for legal fees and $327,000 for reimbursable expenses payable to that firm.

In April 2000, we loaned $1,500,000 to each of Jack Friedman and Stephen G. Berman. The entire principal amount of each loan was originally due on April 28, 2003 and, until repaid, interest thereon was payable semi-annually at the rate of 6.5% per annum. As of March 27, 2003, the outstanding principal balances on Mr. Friedman’s and Mr. Berman’s loans including interest accrued thereon were paid in full. In May 2000, we loaned $250,000 to Joel M. Bennett. The entire principal amount of his loan, together with interest accrued thereon at the rate of 7.0% per annum, was originally due on May 12, 2002, except that, since he continued to be employed by us through such date, in accordance with the terms of his loan agreement, we forgave all $285,000 of his indebtedness to us including accrued interest of $35,000. All three loans were made to assist our executive officers in meeting certain personal financial obligations.

Michael Bianco, Jr. was one of the selling shareholders from whom we acquired Flying Colors Toys in October 1999. In connection with that acquisition, we agreed to pay an earn-out, in an amount not less than $2.5 million nor more than $4.5 million to all of the selling shareholders, in each of the three twelve-month periods following the closing if the gross profit of Flying Colors products achieved certain targeted levels during these periods. We most recently paid $1,850,000 to Mr. Bianco as his portion of the earn-out for the twelve-month period ended September 30, 2002.