Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

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.

Dryer Fire Incident. During November 2020, the Company experienced a fire at the Atchison facility. The fire damaged certain equipment in the facility’s feed drying operations and caused temporary loss of production time. At September 30, 2021, the Company received a legally binding commitment from their insurance carrier of $11,500 that was recorded as Receivables on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. During the quarter and year to date ended September 30, 2021, the Company recorded $6,404 and $16,244, respectively, of partial settlement from its insurance carrier as a reduction of Cost of

sales. The Company recorded $16,500 related to legally committed insurance recovery amounts obtained prior to contingencies related to the insurance claim being resolved, in Accrued expenses and other on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2021. The Company is working to construct a replacement drying system. The Company’s insurance is expected to provide coverage for business interruption and other losses from damage to property, plant and equipment, but there can be no assurance to the amount or timing of possible insurance recoveries.

Ransomware Cyber-Attack. 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 has insurance related to this event and is currently evaluating if it will seek further recovery. Following the attack, MGP implemented a variety of measures to further enhance our cybersecurity protections and minimize the impact of any future attack. The Company’s insurance may cover additional losses from this incident, but there can be no assurance as to the amount or timing of any possible insurance recoveries.

Shareholder matters. In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits 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 sought 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. On July 22, 2020, the Retirement Trust filed a consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint alleged 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 sought compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and unspecified equitable relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought. On September 8, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On August 31, 2021, the court issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Motion to Dismiss dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The Plaintiff had until September 30, 2021 to file a notice of appeal and the Plaintiff did not appeal.

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 August 13, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Kearns action pending the resolution of Dorfman. On November 3, 2020, the court entered an order providing that Defendants’ response to the Carter Complaint shall be due 14 days after a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss filed in Dorfman.

On March 31, 2021, the Dorfman court issued a Memorandum and Order in which it granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s federal claims, dismissed those claims without prejudice, denied without prejudice defendants’ Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s state claims, and stayed the case pending the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Herington v. City of Wichita. Herington involves the issue of whether a federal decision that determines federal claims and dismisses pendent state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction precludes the reassertion of the state law claims in state court. The Kearns court has not yet taken any action in response to the court’s Memorandum and Order in Dorfman. On April 14, 2021, defendants in Carter filed a Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s federal claims and to stay plaintiff’s state claims until fourteen days after the Court rules on the state claims in Dorfman.

On November 25, 2020, Kenneth Laury filed an action in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas under the caption Laury v. MGP Ingredients, Inc., Case Number: 2020-CV-000609. The Petition alleges that plaintiff commenced the action

under K.S.A. 17-6510 to enforce his alleged right to inspect books and records of the Company, in order to enable him to evaluate possible misconduct by the Company’s Board of Directors and management. On January 8, 2021, the Company filed an answer to the Petition, denying that plaintiff has satisfied the statutory requirements for his demand. On May 13, 2021, the parties stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of the action.

2016 Atchison Chemical Release. 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”). Private plaintiffs have 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, but there can be no assurance to the amount or timing of possible insurance recoveries if ultimately claimed by the Company.