Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and 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.

In May 2020, the Company was affected by a ransomware cyber-attack that temporarily disrupted production at its Atchison facilities. The Company's financial information was not affected and there is no evidence that any sensitive or confidential company, supplier, customer or employee data was improperly accessed or extracted from our network. The Company estimates that the ransomware attack adversely impacted gross profit by $1,728, primarily as a result of the business

interruption. The Company has insurance related to this event and is seeking to recover a portion, if not all, of any profit impact including the profit associated with any loss of revenue resulting from this event. The Company will record insurance recovery when it is probable of collection. Following the attack, MGP implemented a variety of measures to further enhance our cybersecurity protections and minimize the impact of any future attack.

In 2020, two putative class action lawsuit were filed in the United States District Court for District of Kansas, naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek to pursue claims on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's Common Stock during certain specified periods (the “Class Periods”). On May 28, 2020, the two lawsuits were consolidated and the Court appointed City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust as lead plaintiff. The consolidated action is captioned In re MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation and the file is maintained under Master File No. 2:20-cv-2090-DDCJPO. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s forecasts of sales of aged whiskey, and that, as a result the Company's Common Stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Periods. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and unspecified equitable relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On May 11, 2020, Mitchell Dorfman, a shareholder in MGP, filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, under the caption Dorfman, derivatively on behalf of MGP Ingredients v. Griffin, et al., Case 2:20-cv-02239. On June 4, 2020, Justin Carter, a shareholder in MGP, filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, under the caption Carter, derivatively on behalf of MGP Ingredients v. Griffin, et al., Case 2:20-cv-02281. On June 18, 2020, Alexandra Kearns, a shareholder in MGP, filed an action in the District Court of Atchison County, Kansas, under the caption Kearns, derivatively on behalf of MGP Ingredients v. Griffin, et al., Case 2020-CV-000042. The defendants are certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The Company is a nominal defendant in each action. Plaintiffs allege that the Company was damaged as a result of the conduct of the individual defendants alleged in the MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation, the repurchase of company stock at artificially inflated prices, and compensation paid to the individual defendants. The Complaint in Dorfman asserts claims for violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Complaint in Carter asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Petition in Kearns asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The pleadings pray for an award of compensatory damages, including interest, in favor of the Company, for equitable relief related to the Company’s corporate governance, for disgorgement of compensation, and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 13, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in Dorfman. On July 16, 2020, the Kearns court entered an Order granting defendants until August 13, 2020 to file a motion to stay the action.

A chemical release occurred at the Company’s Atchison facility on October 21, 2016, which resulted in emissions venting into the air (“the Atchison Chemical Release”). The Company reported the event to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), and to Kansas and local authorities on that date, and has cooperated fully to investigate and ensure that all appropriate response actions were taken.

On May 29, 2019, federal charges for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act related to the Atchison Chemical Release were filed against the Company, along with another unaffiliated company. The Company and the Department of Justice resolved the allegations through a Plea Agreement entered with the Court on November 18, 2019, pursuant to which the Company agreed, among other things, to plead guilty to a misdemeanor negligent violation of the Clean Air Act and pay a fine of $1,000. On May 27, 2020, the Court accepted the Plea Agreement and sentenced the Company to pay a fine of $1,000 consistent with the terms of the parties’ resolution. The fine has been paid and the matter is terminated.

Private plaintiffs have also initiated, and additional private plaintiffs may initiate, legal proceedings for damages resulting from the Atchison Chemical Release, 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.