COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company had purchase commitments aggregating approximately $66.2 million at September 30, 2012, which represented commitments made by the Company and its subsidiaries to various suppliers of raw materials for the production of its products. These obligations vary in terms, but are generally satisfied within one year.

The Company had contractual obligations aggregating approximately $72.3 million at September 30, 2012, which related primarily to sponsorships and other marketing activities.

The Company had operating lease commitments aggregating approximately $15.8 million at September 30, 2012, which related primarily to warehouse and office space.

In March 2012, the Company acquired an approximately 75,425 square foot, free standing, three-story office building, including the real property thereunder and improvements thereon, located in Corona, CA (the “March 2012 Property”) for a purchase price of $9.7 million. In October 2012, the Company acquired an approximately 141,000 square foot, free standing, six-story office building, including the real property thereunder and improvements thereon, located in Corona, CA (the “October 2012 Property”) adjacent to the March 2012 Property, for a purchase price of $18.8 million. The Company intends to complete the necessary improvements to the October 2012 Property and occupy the building as the Company’s new corporate headquarters at some time in the future. The October 2012 Property should more effectively address the future growth needs of the Company.

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.  On January 27, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on terms acceptable to the Company. On June 1, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment.  On June 26, 2012, an objector to the settlement filed a notice appealing the District Court’s judgment, which is now pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company does not believe that the settlement or the pending appeal will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

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.

On October 17, 2012, Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, against the Company claiming that the death of their 14 year old daughter (Anais Fournier) was caused by her consumption of two 24-ounce Monster Energy® drinks over the course of two days in December 2011.  The plaintiffs allege strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties and wrongful death.  The plaintiffs claim general damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages.  The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense.  The Company also believes that any such damages, if awarded, would 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 granting the motion to dismiss as to certain of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denying the motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s channel stuffing allegations.  On September 4, 2012, the District Court issued a Notice of Ruling (the “Order”) adopting the May 12, 2011 tentative ruling as its final ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss.  On October 22, 2012, the District Court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Order or certification of an interlocutory appeal from the Order.  The District Court has set a schedule for briefing and discovery in connection with plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and has scheduled a hearing on that motion for April 1, 2013.  Fact discovery in the action has been stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion.

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. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

State Attorney General Inquiry — In July 2012, the Company received a subpoena from a state attorney general in connection with an investigation concerning the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks. As the investigation is in an early stage, it is unknown what, if any, action the state attorney general may take against the Company, the relief which may be sought in the event of any such proceeding or whether such proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

Derivative Litigation — On September 13, 2012, two derivative complaints were filed in California Superior Courts, purportedly on behalf of the Company, by shareholders of the Company who made no prior demand on the Company’s Board of Directors.  One action, in the Superior Court for the County of Riverside, is styled Iron Workers District Council of Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Pension Plan v. Sacks, et al. The other action, in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, is styled Rumbaugh v. Sacks, et al.

The Iron Workers complaint names as defendants certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company, including Sacks, Schlosberg, Harold C. Taber, Jr., Benjamin M. Polk, Norman C. Epstein, Mark S. Vidergauz, Sydney Selati, and Thomas J. Kelly. The Rumbaugh complaint names each of the same individuals as defendants, with the exception of Thomas J. Kelly.  The Company is named as a nominal defendant in each action. The factual allegations of the two complaints are substantially similar.  Each alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by causing the Company to market, advertise, and promote its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks in a way that has exposed, and will continue to expose, the Company to costly investigations into its compliance with federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to food and beverage advertising.  The complaints further allege that, beginning in February 2012, the Individual Defendants further breached their fiduciary duties by making statements in press releases and public filings about the Company’s earnings and financial condition and by failing to disclose that the Company was improperly advertising, marketing, and promoting its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks.  The Iron Workers complaint further alleges that while the Company’s shares were purportedly artificially inflated because of those improper statements, certain defendants sold Company stock while in possession of material non-public information regarding the Company’s “true” business health. The Iron Workers complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  In addition to those causes of action, the Rumbaugh complaint also asserts causes of action for abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages to be paid to the Company, adoption of corporate governance reforms, and equitable and injunctive relief.

The complaints have been served on certain of the defendants named therein.  The Company intends to seek transfer of the Rumbaugh complaint to Riverside, where it can be consolidated with the Iron Workers complaint.  The deadline for response to the Iron Workers complaint has been extended until after the motion to transfer is decided. Although the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the complaints are without merit.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

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.