Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

For a detailed discussion about the Company’s commitments and contingencies, see Note 22, “Commitments and Contingencies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2020 Form 10-K. During the nine months ended March 31, 2021, other than the following, or as otherwise disclosed in these footnotes in the current Form 10-Q, there were no material changes in the Company’s commitments and contingencies.

Purchase Commitments

As of March 31, 2021, the Company had committed to purchase green coffee inventory totaling $38.3 million under fixed-price contracts, $7.9 million in other inventory under non-cancelable purchase orders and $4.4 million in other purchases under non-cancelable purchase orders.

Legal Proceedings

Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) v. Brad Berry Company Ltd., et al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

On August 31, 2012, CERT filed an amendment to a private enforcement action adding a number of companies as defendants, including the Company’s subsidiary, Coffee Bean International, Inc., which sells coffee in California under the State of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“Prop 65”). The suit alleges that the defendants have failed to issue clear and reasonable warnings in accordance with Prop 65 that the coffee they produce, distribute, and sell contains acrylamide. This lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Court”). CERT alleges that the Company and the other defendants failed to provide warnings for their coffee products of exposure to the chemical acrylamide as required under Prop 65. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers of coffee products, as well as civil penalties in the amount of the statutory maximum of $2,500 per day per violation of Prop 65. The Plaintiff asserts that every consumed cup of coffee, absent a compliant warning, is equivalent to a violation under Prop 65.

The Company, as part of a joint defense group (“JDG”) organized to defend against the lawsuit, disputes the claims of CERT. 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. Acrylamide is produced naturally in connection with the heating of many foods, especially starchy foods, and is believed to be caused by the Maillard reaction, though it has also been found in unheated foods such as olives. With respect to coffee, acrylamide is produced when coffee beans are heated during the roasting process-it is the roasting itself that produces the acrylamide. While there has been a significant amount of research concerning proposals for treatments and other processes aimed at reducing acrylamide content of different types of foods, to our knowledge there is currently no known strategy for reducing acrylamide in coffee without negatively impacting the sensorial properties of the product.

The Company has asserted multiple affirmative defenses. Trial of the first phase of the case commenced on September 8, 2014, and was limited to three affirmative defenses shared by all defendants. On September 1, 2015, the trial court issued a final ruling adverse to defendants on all Phase 1 defenses. Trial of the second phase of the case commenced in the fall of 2017. On May 7, 2018, the trial court issued a ruling adverse to defendants on the Phase 2 defense, the Company's last remaining defense to liability. On June 22, 2018, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed a new regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65. The case was set to proceed to a third phase trial on damages, remedies and attorneys' fees on October 15, 2018. However, on October 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal granted the “defendants” request for a stay of the Phase 3 trial.

On June 3, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the coffee exemption regulation. The regulation became effective on October 1, 2019. On June 24, 2019, the Court of Appeal lifted the stay of the litigation. A status conference was held on July 11, 2019. The Court granted the JDG’s motion for leave to amend its answers to add the coffee exemption regulation as a defense. Concurrently, the Court denied CERT’s motion to add OEHHA as a party but granted CERT’s motions to complete the administrative record with respect to the exemption and to undertake certain third party discovery. A status conference was held November 12, 2019 to discuss discovery issues and dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s motion to compel OEHHA to add documents to the rulemaking file for the new coffee exemption regulation was denied. CERT continued to pursue third-party discovery with plans to file motions to compel appearances of proposed deponents. These motions, along with CERT’s eight summary judgment motions, were heard at a January 21, 2020 hearing where the Court denied several of CERT’s discovery requests. The JDG’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment was due to the Court on the March 16, 2020 however, on March 17, 2020, notice was given that the Court was rescheduling the

hearings set for March 23, 2020. Due to COVID 19 restrictions, the Court continued the hearing on the nine motions until July 16, 2020. At the hearing, the Court denied three of CERT’s motions for summary adjudication that challenged the OEHHA rulemaking, and rescheduled the balance of the pending motions for August 10, 2020. Subsequent to the hearing on January 21, 2020, Plaintiff made broad discovery requests against each of the defendants in hopes of opening up a third round of discovery. The discovery focuses on “additives to” and “flavorings” in coffee. The JDG has responded to the discovery requests but Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel further answers to discovery and production of documents.

At the August 10, 2020 hearing, the Court denied multiple motions by the Plaintiffs for summary adjudication. The hearing on the remaining motions was scheduled for August 25, 2020 and at that hearing, the Court denied CERT’s motion for summary judgment and granted the JDG’s motion for summary judgment, noting that the discovery and claims regarding additives were outside the scope of this case. Notice of Judgment in favor of defendants was entered on October 6, 2020.

On November 20, 2020, CERT filed an appeal with the Superior Court of California. On January 29, 2021, CERT filed another appeal with the Superior Court of California. On April 9, 2021, CERT filed it’s opening brief on the first appeal. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the timing of the final ruling. In addition, the Company believes that the likelihood that the Company will ultimately incur a loss in connection with this litigation is less than reasonably possible.

The Company is a party to various other pending legal and administrative proceedings. It is management’s opinion that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.