Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 13 — Commitments and Contingencies As previously reported, on April 22, 2011, Western Sugar and two other sugar companies filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Corn Refiners Association (“CRA”) and certain of its member companies, including the Company, alleging false and/or misleading statements relating to high fructose corn syrup in violation of the Lanham Act and California’s unfair competition law. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On May 23, 2011, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add additional plaintiffs, among other reasons. On July 1, 2011, the CRA and the member companies in the case filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on multiple grounds. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed all Federal and state claims against the Company and the other members of the CRA, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and also dismissed all state law claims against the CRA. The state law claims against the CRA were dismissed pursuant to a California law known as the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which, according to the court’s opinion, allows early dismissal of meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expression through costly, time-consuming litigation. The court held that the CRA’s statements were protected speech made in a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest (high fructose corn syrup). Under the anti-SLAPP statute, the CRA is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs from the plaintiffs. On November 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a second, amended complaint against certain of the CRA member companies, including the Company, seeking to reinstate the federal law claims, but not the state law claims, against certain of the CRA member companies, including the Company. On December 16, 2011, the CRA member companies filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on multiple grounds. On July 31, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the motion to dismiss for all CRA member companies other than Roquette America, Inc. On September 4, 2012, the Company and the other CRA member companies that remain defendants in the case filed an answer to the plaintiffs’ second, amended complaint that, among other things, added a counterclaim against the Sugar Association. The counterclaim alleges that the Sugar Association has made false and misleading statements that processed sugar differs from high fructose corn syrup in ways that are beneficial to consumers’ health (i.e., that consumers will be healthier if they consume foods and beverages containing processed sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup). The counterclaim, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Although the counterclaim was initially only filed against the Sugar Association, the Company and the other CRA member companies that remain defendants in the Western Sugar case have reserved the right to add other plaintiffs to the counterclaim in the future. On October 29, 2012, the Sugar Association and the other plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim and certain related portions of the defendants’ answer, each on multiple grounds. On December 10, 2012, the remaining member companies which are defendants in the case responded to the motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On January 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants’ response to the motion to dismiss. On September 16, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, which entitles the Company and the other CRA member companies to continue to pursue the counterclaim against the Sugar Association and the other plaintiffs. The Company continues to believe that the second, amended complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. In addition, the Company intends to vigorously pursue its rights in connection with the counterclaim. In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into purchase commitments principally related to power supply and raw material sourcing. Such agreements, including take or pay contracts, help to provide the Company with adequate supply of power and raw material at certain of our facilities. The Company would be subject to liquidated damages in the unlikely event that it did not fulfill such commitments. The Company is currently subject to various other claims and suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain environmental proceedings and product liability claims. The Company does not believe that the results of such legal proceedings, even if unfavorable to the Company, will be material to the Company. There can be no assurance, however, that such claims or suits or those arising in the future, whether taken individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

NOTE 13 — Commitments and Contingencies

As previously reported, on April 22, 2011, Western Sugar and two other sugar companies filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Corn Refiners Association (“CRA”) and certain of its member companies, including the Company, alleging false and/or misleading statements relating to high fructose corn syrup in violation of the Lanham Act and California’s unfair competition law. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On May 23, 2011, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add additional plaintiffs, among other reasons.

On July 1, 2011, the CRA and the member companies in the case filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on multiple grounds. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed all Federal and state claims against the Company and the other members of the CRA, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and also dismissed all state law claims against the CRA.

The state law claims against the CRA were dismissed pursuant to a California law known as the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which, according to the court’s opinion, allows early dismissal of meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expression through costly, time-consuming litigation. The court held that the CRA’s statements were protected speech made in a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest (high fructose corn syrup). Under the anti-SLAPP statute, the CRA is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs from the plaintiffs.

On November 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a second, amended complaint against certain of the CRA member companies, including the Company, seeking to reinstate the federal law claims, but not the state law claims, against certain of the CRA member companies, including the Company. On December 16, 2011, the CRA member companies filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on multiple grounds. On July 31, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the motion to dismiss for all CRA member companies other than Roquette America, Inc.

On September 4, 2012, the Company and the other CRA member companies that remain defendants in the case filed an answer to the plaintiffs’ second, amended complaint that, among other things, added a counterclaim against the Sugar Association. The counterclaim alleges that the Sugar Association has made false and misleading statements that processed sugar differs from high fructose corn syrup in ways that are beneficial to consumers’ health (i.e., that consumers will be healthier if they consume foods and beverages containing processed sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup). The counterclaim, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Although the counterclaim was initially only filed against the Sugar Association, the Company and the other CRA member companies that remain defendants in the Western Sugar case have reserved the right to add other plaintiffs to the counterclaim in the future.

On October 29, 2012, the Sugar Association and the other plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim and certain related portions of the defendants’ answer, each on multiple grounds. On December 10, 2012, the remaining member companies which are defendants in the case responded to the motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On January 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants’ response to the motion to dismiss. On September 16, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, which entitles the Company and the other CRA member companies to continue to pursue the counterclaim against the Sugar Association and the other plaintiffs.

The Company continues to believe that the second, amended complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. In addition, the Company intends to vigorously pursue its rights in connection with the counterclaim.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into purchase commitments principally related to power supply and raw material sourcing. Such agreements, including take or pay contracts, help to provide the Company with adequate supply of power and raw material at certain of our facilities. The Company would be subject to liquidated damages in the unlikely event that it did not fulfill such commitments.

The Company is currently subject to various other claims and suits arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain environmental proceedings and product liability claims. The Company does not believe that the results of such legal proceedings, even if unfavorable to the Company, will be material to the Company. There can be no assurance, however, that such claims or suits or those arising in the future, whether taken individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.