Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

The Company enters into contracts with a network of contract manufacturers that require them to provide us with specific finished products and provide for minimum production commitments. Most of our agreements with our contract manufacturers expire in 2017 and will thereafter be automatically renewed for consecutive one-year terms until notice of non-renewal is given. The Company also enters into contracts for the purchase of several of its main ingredients. Such contracts call for minimum purchase requirements and typically cover one year or one crop season and are renewed annually.

The following table summarizes our future minimum purchase commitments as of December 31, 2016:



	Total		Less Than 1 Year		1-3 Years		3-5 Years		More Than 5 Years
(dollars in thousands)
Finished goods minimum purchase obligations	$	32,991	$	18,170	$	14,821	$	—	$	—
Raw material purchase obligations	321,842		314,941		6,901		—		—
Total contractual obligations	$	354,833	$	333,111	$	21,722	$	—	$	—

Litigation & Settlements

In the normal course of business, we are subject to proceedings, lawsuits and other claims and assessments, which typically include consumer complaints and post-termination employment claims. We have assessed such contingent liabilities and believe that other than the litigations described below the potential of these liabilities is not expected to have a material, if any, effect on our financial position, our results of operations or our cash flows.

Nestlé Purina and Related Litigations

On May 6, 2014, Nestlé Purina Petcare Company (“Nestlé Purina”) filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which alleged that we had engaged in false advertising, commercial disparagement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment (the “Nestlé Purina litigation”). Nestlé Purina asserted, among other things, that, contrary to our advertising and labeling claims, certain BLUE products contained chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial preservatives and/or corn and that certain products in the BLUE grain-free lines contained grains. Nestlé Purina sought an injunction prohibiting us from making these alleged false and misleading statements, as well as treble damages, restitution and disgorgement of our profits, among other things. In addition, Nestlé Purina issued press releases and made other public announcements, including advertising and promotional communications through emails and internet and social media websites that made claims similar to those contained in their lawsuit. Nestlé Purina sought a declaratory judgment that these statements were true and did not constitute defamation.

In the course of pretrial discovery in the consolidated Nestlé Purina lawsuit, beginning in September 2014 documents and information were revealed that indicate that a facility owned by a major supplier of ingredients to the pet food industry, including Blue Buffalo, for a period of time, had mislabeled as “chicken meal” or “turkey meal” ingredients that contained other poultry-based ingredients that were inappropriate for inclusion in “chicken meal” or “turkey meal” under industry standards, and it appeared that this mislabeling was deliberate. This conduct was undertaken by the supplier without our knowledge, and we have since ceased purchasing ingredients from this facility. This supplier was one of our primary sources of chicken meal and turkey meal. As a result of the supplier’s conduct, our advertising claims of “no chicken or poultry by-product meals” were inaccurate as to products containing the mislabeled ingredients. Therefore, we were exposed to false advertising liability to Nestlé Purina and are similarly exposed to such liability to others to the extent a claimant can prove they were injured by our actions. Such liability may be material. We brought third-party indemnity and damages claims, with respect to the Nestlé Purina lawsuit, against the supplier that mislabeled the ingredients, as well as a broker involved in those transactions for such mislabeled ingredients. The trial court narrowed certain of our third party claims in response to motions to dismiss filed by the third parties but allowed numerous claims to proceed. In addition, we maintain insurance coverage for some of the Nestlé Purina claims.

On October 15, 2014, we initiated a separate false advertising lawsuit against Nestlé Purina in state court in Connecticut. Nestlé Purina subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and the Connecticut District Court then granted Nestlé Purina’s motion to transfer this matter to the same court where Nestlé Purina’s lawsuit against us was pending. Our complaint sought an injunction prohibiting Nestlé Purina from continuing these false and misleading advertisements, as well as damages and disgorgement of profits, among other things. On July 31, 2015, Nestlé Purina filed an amended answer in this case that also asserted counterclaims against us.

On November 2, 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with Nestlé Purina pursuant to which we paid Nestlé Purina $32.0 million, each party dismissed all of its claims and counterclaims against the other with prejudice, and we dismissed, with prejudice, our claims against Nestlé Purina’s advertising and public relations agencies (the “Nestlé Purina Settlement”). We plan to continue to pursue our claims against the third party ingredient supplier and broker that sold us mislabeled ingredients, as well as against our insurance providers as further described below. However, we may not be able to fully recover from such supplier or broker, or from our insurance providers the full amount paid in the Nestlé Purina Settlement or other damages incurred in connection with our litigation with Nestlé Purina.

In addition, a number of related putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed in various states in the U.S. making allegations similar to Nestlé Purina’s and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. We also brought damages and indemnity claims against our former ingredient supplier and broker with respect to these U.S. class action lawsuits. In December 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve all of the U.S. class action lawsuits (the “Class Action Settlement”). Under the terms of the Class Action Settlement, we agreed to pay $32.0 million into a settlement fund, and on January 8, 2016, we paid this $32.0 million into an escrow account pending final court approval. Attorneys’ fees awarded by the court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement fund. The Class Action Settlement received final court approval on May 19, 2016, and has since been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The amount that each class member who submits a claim for reimbursement will receive will depend on the total amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by the claimant during the class period and certain other conditions including whether the claimant has a proof of purchase. The Class Action Settlement value does not take into account any potential recovery from insurance or from our former ingredient supplier or broker, against whom we will continue to pursue our claims for indemnity and other damages. However, we may not be able to fully recover from such supplier or broker, or from our insurance providers, the full amount of paid in the Class Action Settlement or other damages incurred in connection with the U.S. class action lawsuits.

In addition to the U.S. class actions, which are the subject of the Settlement, in February 2016, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, Ontario, seeking damages and injunctive relief based on allegations similar to those made in the U.S. class actions. We believe the claims are without merit and plan to vigorously defend ourselves.

On July 11, 2016, we filed a lawsuit in State of Connecticut Superior Court against Travelers Property and Casualty Company of America and The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut (together, “Travelers”), which provided our primary and excess commercial general liability insurance coverage from February 2007 to February 2011 (collectively, the “Travelers Policies”), as well as the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, “Hartford”). Hartford has provided our primary and excess commercial general liability insurance coverage since February 2011 (collectively, the “Hartford Policies”). Our lawsuit alleges that Travelers and Hartford, among other things, (a) breached their duties under the Travelers Policies and the Hartford Policies, respectively, by failing to (i) pay all reasonable defense fees and costs in connection with the Nestlé Purina litigation, the U.S. class action lawsuits and the putative class action in Ontario; and (ii) indemnify us for the $32.0 million U.S. class action settlement; (b) breached their covenants of good faith and fair dealing owed to us and acted in bad faith; and (c) violated the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Our lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that we are entitled under the Travelers Policies and Hartford Policies to (x) a full defense, including payment of all reasonable and necessary defense fees and costs, in the Nestlé Purina litigation and the putative class action in Ontario; (y) coverage for the legal fees and costs incurred in our prosecution of any of our third party claims against the ingredient supplier and broker that sold us mislabeled “chicken meal” or “turkey meal” ingredients; and (z) full indemnity against (i) the settlement in the Nestlé Purina litigation, (ii) any settlement or judgment in the putative class action in Ontario and (iii) the $32.0 million settlement in the U.S. class action lawsuits. On November 28, 2016, Hartford and Travelers each filed a motion to strike certain of our claims. We have opposed those motions.