LEGAL MATTERS

The Company is involved from time to time in various claims, proceedings, and litigation, including those described below. We establish reserves for specific legal proceedings when we determine that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Management has also identified certain other legal matters where we believe an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and/or for which no estimate of possible losses can be made.

Antitrust Litigation

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that Keurig had monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods. The TreeHouse complaint sought monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint were substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig’s products in various federal district courts. On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. An additional class action on behalf of indirect purchasers, originally filed in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas (Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 23CV-15-818), was similarly transferred on November 10, 2015. The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB) (the “Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation”). Discovery in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation has commenced.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against Keurig and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee L.P. ("Club Coffee"), a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods, claiming damages of CDN $600 million and asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by Keurig.

On January 11, 2019 McLane Company, Inc. (“McLane”) filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (McLane Company, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00325) in the United States District Court Southern District of New York asserting claims and seeking relief substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the Multidistrist Antitrust Litigation.

KDP intends to vigorously defend all of the pending lawsuits. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on the Company or its operations.

Proposition 65 Litigation

On May 9, 2011, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics ("CERT") filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against Keurig. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Brad Barry LLC, et al., Case No. BC461182. CERT alleges that Keurig, in addition to nearly one hundred other defendants who manufacture, package, distribute, or sell coffee, failed to warn persons in California that Keurig's coffee products (the "Products") expose persons to the chemical acrylamide in violation of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, et seq. ("Proposition 65"). CERT seeks equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers, as well as civil penalties in the amount of the statutory maximum of $2,500 per day per violation of Proposition 65. CERT asserts that every consumed cup of coffee, absent a compliant warning, is equivalent to a violation under Proposition 65.

Keurig, as part of a joint defense group organized to defend against the lawsuit, disputes the claims of the Plaintiff. Acrylamide is not added to coffee, but is present in all coffee in small amounts (parts per billion) as a byproduct of the coffee bean roasting process. Keurig has asserted multiple affirmative defenses. The case was scheduled to proceed to a third phase for trial on damages, remedies and attorneys' fees beginning on October 15, 2018, however on October 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal granted the defendants request for a stay of the third phase trial.

Potentially relevant to the lawsuit, on June 15, 2018, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) proposed a new regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65. Defendants anticipate that the proposed regulation, if finalized, could be effective as early as April 2019.

At this stage of the proceedings, prior to a trial on remedies issues, Keurig is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or effect on Keurig or its operations that could be associated with the lawsuit. The trial court has discretion to impose zero penalties against Keurig or to impose significant statutory penalties. Significant labeling or warning requirements that could potentially be imposed by the trial court may increase Keurig's costs and adversely affect sales of coffee products. We can provide no assurances as to the outcome of any litigation.

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY MATTERS

The Company operates many manufacturing, bottling and distribution facilities. In these and other aspects of the Company's business, it is subject to a variety of federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. The Company maintains environmental, health and safety policies and a quality, environmental, health and safety program designed to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. However, the nature of the Company's business exposes it to the risk of claims with respect to environmental, health and safety matters, and there can be no assurance that material costs or liabilities will not be incurred in connection with such claims.

The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, also known as the Superfund law, as well as similar state laws, generally impose joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and former owners and operators of a site without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct. The Company was notified by the Environmental Protection Agency that it is a potentially responsible party for study and cleanup costs at a Superfund site in New Jersey. Investigation and remediation costs are yet to be determined, therefore no reasonable estimate exists on which to base a loss accrual. The Company participates in a study for this site with other potentially responsible parties.