COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company has purchase commitments aggregating approximately $18.1 million, which represent commitments made by the Company and its subsidiaries to various suppliers of raw materials for the manufacturing and packaging of its products.  These obligations will be paid over the next 12 months.

The Company has contractual obligations aggregating approximately $52.5 million, which are related primarily to sponsorships and other marketing activities. These obligations will be paid over the next five years.

The Company has operating lease commitments aggregating approximately $19.7 million, which are related primarily to warehouse and office space. The vast majority of these obligations will be paid over the next five years.

Litigation – In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair business practices, false advertising, violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels its Blue Sky beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Defendants removed this Superior Court action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) under the Class Action Fairness Act and filed motions for dismissal or transfer.  On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Chavez’s complaint with prejudice.  On June 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) filed a memorandum opinion reversing the decision of the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion for a decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.  On June 18, 2010, the District Court entered an order certifying the class, ruled that there was no preemption by federal law, and denied the Company’s motion to dismiss.  The class that the District Court certified initially consists of all persons who purchased any beverage bearing the Blue Sky mark or brand in the United States at any time between May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006.  On September 9, 2010, the District Court approved the form of the class notice and its distribution plan; and set an opt-out date of December 10, 2010, and a trial date for March, 2011.  On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Request for Leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order certifying the class action.  On November 11, 2010, the Company filed two dispositive motions: a motion to decertify the class and a motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff filed his motion for partial summary judgment.  The District Court took all motions under submission without oral argument.  On January 31, 2011, the case was reassigned to Judge Jeffrey S. White.  The District Court has subsequently vacated all pending hearing dates and has taken the pending motions under submission without oral argument.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all the allegations and plans a vigorous defense. The Company believes that any possible litigation losses, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

On August 28, 2008, the Company initiated an action against Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc., in the United States District Court, Central District of California, for violations of federal securities laws and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, arising out of the Company’s purchase of auction rate securities.  The Company stipulated to arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), which commenced on June 21, 2011.  The Company and the defendants entered into an agreement on terms acceptable to the Company, and as a consequence, the arbitration proceeding before FINRA and the lawsuit initiated by the Company in the United States District Court were subsequently dismissed with prejudice, and the parties have released all of their claims against each other.

In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against the Company and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as defendants.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy® products in Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of the energy drink products.  The plaintiff’s claims against the defendants are for negligence, unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).  The plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class in the amount of CDN$20 million, together with punitive damages of CDN$5 million, plus legal costs and interest. The plaintiff’s certification motion materials have not yet been filed. The Company believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company will not file an answer to the complaint until after the determination of the certification motion.  The Company believes that the plaintiff’s complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense.

In addition to the above matters, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including claims from terminated distributors.  Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company and after consultation with counsel, management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Securities Litigation –– On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the “Consolidated Class Action Complaint”). The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the “Class Period”).  It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“AB”) and its sales of “Allied” energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information.  Plaintiff also alleged that the Company’s financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On July 12, 2010, following a hearing, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify which statements Plaintiff claimed were false or misleading, failed adequately to allege that certain statements were actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter.

On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the “Amended Class Action Complaint”).  While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in “channel stuffing” during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company’s reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants.  In addition, it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.  The Amended Class Action Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on November 8, 2010.   At a hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint held on May 12, 2011, the District Court issued a tentative ruling that would grant the motion to dismiss as to certain of Plaintiff’s claims, but would deny the motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of Plaintiff’s claims.  The District Court has not, however, issued a final ruling.  The District Court held an additional hearing on the motion to dismiss on May 25, 2011, and has received supplemental submissions from the parties.  Defendants’ motion to dismiss remains sub judice.

The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be estimated.

Derivative Litigation –– On October 15, 2008, a derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”), styled Merckel v. Sacks, et al.  On November 17, 2008, a second derivative complaint styled Dislevy v. Sacks, et al. was also filed in the District Court.  The derivative suits were each brought, purportedly on behalf of the Company, by a shareholder of the Company who made no prior demand on the Company’s Board of Directors.

On June 29, 2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating the Merckel and Dislevy actions.  On July 13, 2009, the District Court entered an order re-styling the consolidated actions as In re Hansen Derivative Shareholder Litigation, appointing Raymond Merckel as lead plaintiff and appointing lead counsel, and establishing a schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and for defendants’ response to such complaint.

On October 13, 2009, a purported Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the “Consolidated Derivative Complaint”) was filed.  The Consolidated Derivative Complaint named as defendants certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company, including Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, Harold C. Taber, Jr., Benjamin M. Polk, Norman C. Epstein, Mark S. Vidergauz, Sydney Selati, Thomas J. Kelly, Mark J. Hall, and Kirk S. Blower, as well as Hilrod Holdings, L.P.  The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The factual allegations of the Consolidated Derivative Complaint were similar to those set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint described above.  Plaintiff alleged that, from November 2006 to the present, the defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements concerning its business prospects and failed to properly disclose problems related to its non-Monster energy drinks, the prospects for the Anheuser-Busch distribution relationship, and alleged “inventory loading” that affected the Company’s results for the second quarter of 2007.  Plaintiff further alleged that while the Company’s shares were purportedly artificially inflated because of those improper statements, certain of the defendants sold Company stock while in possession of material non-public information.  The Consolidated Derivative Complaint asserted various causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Cal. Corp. Code §§ 25402 and 25403 for insider selling, and unjust enrichment.  The suit sought an unspecified amount of damages to be paid to the Company and adoption of corporate governance reforms, among other things.

On January 8, 2010, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 23.1.  On March 2, 2010, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to amend the Consolidated Derivative Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) for the purpose of replacing Mr. Merckel as lead plaintiff with another shareholder of the Company, Anastasia Brueckheimer.  Following a hearing on July 12, 2010, the District Court (i) permitted Ms. Brueckheimer to intervene in the Derivative Litigation as lead plaintiff and to file a Verified Complaint in Intervention (the “Complaint in Intervention”) similar in all material respects to the Consolidated Derivative Complaint; and (ii) dismissed the Complaint in Intervention, with leave to amend, on the ground that Plaintiff’s allegations of demand futility were insufficient to excuse the failure to make a pre-suit demand on the Company’s Board of Directors.

On October 1, 2010, Ms. Brueckheimer filed a Verified Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the “Amended Derivative Complaint”).  While the Amended Derivative Complaint asserts the same causes of action and contains many of the same substantive allegations as the Consolidated Derivative Complaint, it also advances new allegations about “channel stuffing,” which are substantially similar to the allegations pled in the Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Derivative Complaint on December 20, 2010, on the ground that Plaintiff had again failed adequately to allege demand futility.  Following a hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss the Amended Derivative Complaint held on May 12, 2011, the District Court dismissed the Amended Derivative Complaint, with prejudice, on this ground.  On July 10, 2011, Ms. Brueckheimer filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  As currently scheduled, Plaintiff’s opening brief on appeal is due on November 21, 2011, defendants’ brief in opposition is due on December 21, 2011 and Plaintiff’s reply brief, if any, is due on January 4, 2012.

Although the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint and the Amended Derivative Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

The Amended Derivative Complaint names the Company as a nominal defendant and seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the Company against the various defendants named therein.