XML 27 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.8.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies.

Commitments. Open purchase order commitments at September 30, 2017 related to raw materials and packaging used in the ordinary course of business were $51,539 extending out to December 2018. Open purchase order commitments at September 30, 2017 related to the purchase of capital assets were $6,116.

Certain commodities the Company uses in its production process are exposed to market price risk due to volatility in the prices for those commodities.  The Company's grain supply contract for its Lawrenceburg and Atchison facilities permits the Company to purchase grain for delivery up to 12 months into the future at negotiated prices.  The pricing for these contracts is based on a formula using several factors.  The Company has determined that the firm commitments to purchase grain under the terms of these contracts meet the normal purchases and sales exception as defined under ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and has excluded the fair value of these commitments from recognition within its consolidated financial statements until the actual contracts are physically settled.

The Company’s production process also involves the use of wheat flour and natural gas. The contracts for wheat flour and natural gas range from monthly contracts to multi-year supply arrangements; however, because the quantities involved have always been for amounts to be consumed within the normal expected production process, the Company has determined that these contracts meet the criteria for the normal purchases and sales exception and have excluded the fair value of these commitments from recognition within its consolidated financial statements until the actual contracts are physically settled.

Contingencies. There are various legal and regulatory proceedings involving the Company and its subsidiaries.  The Company accrues estimated costs for a contingency when management believes that a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated.

On December 21, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a Notice of Violation to the Company alleging the Company commenced construction of new aging warehouses for whiskey at its facility in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, without first applying for or obtaining a Clean Air Act permit and without adequately demonstrating to the EPA that emissions control equipment did not need to be installed to meet applicable air quality standards. The Company notes that neither EPA nor the State of Indiana have required emission control equipment for aging whiskey warehouses and, to our knowledge, no other whiskey distillers in the U.S. have been required to install emissions control equipment in their aging whiskey warehouses. No demand for a penalty has been made in connection with the Notice of Violation, but the Company believes it is probable that a penalty will be assessed. Although it is not possible to reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss at the date of this filing, the Company currently does not expect that the amount of any such penalty or related remedies would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

A chemical release occurred at the Company's Atchison facility on October 21, 2016, which resulted in emissions venting into the air.  The Company reported the event to the EPA, the Occupational, Safety, and Health Administration ("OSHA"), and to Kansas and local authorities on that date, and is cooperating fully to investigate and ensure that all appropriate response actions are taken.  The Company has also engaged outside experts to assist the investigation and response.  The Company believes it is probable that a fine or penalty may be imposed by regulatory authorities, but it is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount thereof for Kansas and local authorities since some investigations are not complete and could take several months up to a few years to complete.  Private plaintiffs have initiated, and additional private plaintiffs may initiate, legal proceedings for damages resulting from the emission, but the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of any such damages that might result.  The Company's insurance is expected to provide coverage of any damages to private plaintiffs, subject to a deductible of $250, but certain regulatory fines or penalties may not be covered and there can be no assurance to the amount or timing of possible insurance recoveries if ultimately claimed by the Company.  There was no significant damage to the Company's Atchison plant as a result of this incident.  No other MGP facilities, including the distillery in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, were affected by this incident.
OSHA completed its investigation and, on April 19, 2017, issued its penalty to the Company in the amount of $138.  Management settled this assessment with OSHA in full for $75, which was paid on May 16, 2017. A portion, or all, of the penalty amount may be covered by insurance.

The EPA informed the Company on August 1, 2017, that it intends to seek civil penalties of approximately $250 in connection with its investigation, while offering the Company the opportunity to settle the matter prior to the EPA proceeding with a formal enforcement action. The Company is seeking a negotiated settlement with the EPA. Since negotiations are ongoing and EPA-proposed penalties are not material to the quarter ended September 30, 2017, the Company has not included an accrual in its results. A portion, or all, of the settled penalty amount may be covered by insurance.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ("TTB") performed a federal excise tax audit of the Company’s subsidiaries, MGPI of Indiana, LLC and MGPI Processing, Inc., for the periods January 1, 2012 through July 31, 2015 and January 1, 2013 through July 31, 2015, respectively.  TTB informed the Company that it would be assessing a penalty as a result of the audit, and the Company offered a settlement for the penalty.  The settlement has been accepted in principle by the TTB and the amount expensed in the prior year was insignificant to the Company’s 2016 financial results.