COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company had purchase commitments aggregating approximately $32.8 million at June 30, 2014, 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 $70.6 million at June 30, 2014, which related primarily to sponsorships and other marketing activities. The Company had operating lease commitments aggregating approximately $13.1 million at June 30, 2014, which related primarily to warehouse and office space. Value Added Tax (“VAT”) – The Company sought guidance from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”), the VAT taxing authority in the United Kingdom, to determine if the Company should have charged VAT in the United Kingdom on a portion of the Company’s sales beginning May 26, 2010. The Company received guidance from HMRC that confirmed the Company’s position of charging VAT beginning October 3, 2013, pursuant to a new agreement effective on this date. As a result, no VAT pass-through tax for the period beginning on May 26, 2010 through October 3, 2013 is due to HMRC. Furthermore, no tax penalties will be assessed by HMRC relating to this matter. Legal Proceedings On October 17, 2012, Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, styled Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier v. Monster Beverage Corporation, 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 filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint on November 19, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on June 7, 2013. The parties attended a court ordered mediation on January 23, 2014. Discovery has commenced but no trial date has been set. 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. The Company has also been named as a defendant in other complaints containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier lawsuit, each of which the Company believes is also without merit and would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in the event any damages were awarded. 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. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (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. The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the “Amended Class Action Complaint”). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made 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 named Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant. On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff’s allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on January 17, 2014. Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on April 16, 2014 that, if approved by the District Court, will resolve the litigation and result in the action being dismissed with prejudice. Preliminary approval hearings with respect to the proposed settlement were held on June 19, 2014 and July 21, 2014, and the District Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on July 29, 2014. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed that certain of its insurance carriers will pay $16.25 million into an escrow account for distribution to a proposed settlement class, certified by the District Court for settlement purposes only and consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during the Class Period. Excluded from the proposed settlement class are the Company’s officers and directors, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest, as well as any putative member of the settlement class who submits a valid and timely request for exclusion in the manner ultimately approved by the District Court. Under the proposed settlement, defendants and various of their related persons and entities will receive a full release of all claims that were or could have been brought in the action as well as all claims that arise out of, are based upon or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts, representations, omissions or other matters involved in the complaints filed in the action or any statement communicated to the public during the Class Period, and the purchase, acquisition or sale of the Company’s stock during the Class Period. The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues to deny all of the allegations against them and believes that the claims are without merit. Because the full amount of the proposed settlement will be paid by the Company’s insurance carriers, the settlement will not have an effect on the Company’s results of operations. 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. 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. San Francisco City Attorney Litigation. On October 31, 2012, the Company received a written request for information from the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco concerning the Company’s advertising and marketing of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks and specifically concerning the safety of its products for consumption by adolescents. In a letter dated March 29, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney threatened to bring suit against the Company if it did not agree to take the following five steps immediately: (i) “Reformulate its products to lower the caffeine content to safe levels”; (ii) “Provide adequate warning labels”; (iii) “Cease promoting over-consumption in marketing”; (iv) “Cease use of alcohol and drug references in marketing”; and (v) “Cease targeting minors.” (i) The Company Action - On April 29, 2013, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Monster Energy Company, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the San Francisco City Attorney (the “Company Action”) in United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”), styled Monster Beverage Corp., et al. v. Dennis Herrera. The Company seeks a declaration from the Central District Court that the San Francisco City Attorney’s investigation and demands are impermissible and preempted, subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, are unconstitutional in that they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibitions against compelled speech, content-based speech and commercial speech, are impermissibly void-for-vagueness, and/or violate the Commerce Clause. On June 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Company Action, arguing in part that the complaint should be dismissed in light of the San Francisco Action (described below) filed on May 6, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the Central District Court granted in part and denied in part the City Attorney’s motion. On October 17, 2013 (after the San Francisco Action, described below, was remanded to San Francisco Superior Court), the City Attorney filed a renewed motion to dismiss the Company Action and on December 16, 2013, the Central District Court granted the City Attorney’s renewed motion, dismissing the Company Action. The Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on December 18, 2013. (ii) The San Francisco Action - On May 6, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., styled People Of The State Of California ex rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Monster Beverage Corporation, in San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco Action”). The City Attorney alleges that the Company (1) mislabeled its products as a dietary supplement, in violation of California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, California Health & Safety Code sections 109875 et. seq.; (2) is selling an “adulterated” product because caffeine is not generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) due to the alleged lack of scientific consensus concerning the safety of the levels of caffeine in the Company’s products; and (3) is engaged in unfair and misleading business practices because its marketing (a) does not disclose the health risks that energy drinks pose for children and teens; (b) fails to warn against and promotes unsafe consumption; (c) implicitly promotes mixing of energy drinks with alcohol or drugs; and (d) is deceptive because it includes unsubstantiated claims about the purported special benefits of its “killer” ingredients and “energy blend.” The City Attorney seeks a declaration that the Company has engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; an injunction from performing or proposing to perform any acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; restitution; and civil penalties. On June 3, 2013, the Company removed the San Francisco Action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”). On July 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to remand the San Francisco Action back to state court. On September 18, 2013, the Northern District Court granted the City Attorney’s motion to remand the San Francisco Action back to state court. On January 15, 2014, the Company filed a demurrer to and motion to strike allegations in the complaint in the San Francisco Action. On March 5, 2014, the Court overruled the demurrer, granted the motion to strike as to one theory for relief pleaded by the City Attorney, and lifted the stay on discovery. On March 20, 2014, the City Attorney filed an amended complaint, adding allegations supporting the theory for relief as to which the Court had granted the motion to strike. On April 18, 2014, the Company filed a renewed motion to strike, challenging the theory for relief previously rejected by the Court, as well as a motion asking the Court to bifurcate and/or stay claims relating to the safety of Monster Energy® drinks, pending resolution of the ongoing FDA investigation of the safety and labeling of food products to which caffeine is added. On May 22, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s motion to strike and motion to bifurcate and/or stay claims relating to safety. A case management conference is scheduled for August 27, 2014. Discovery is ongoing. On June 16, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, asking for a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the Company’s motion to bifurcate and/or stay the San Francisco Action, and instead to stay proceedings pending FDA’s investigation. On June 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal denied the petition. On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On July 23, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the petition. The Company denies that it has violated the Unfair Competition Law or any other law and believes that the City Attorney’s claims and demands are preempted and unconstitutional, as alleged in the action the Company filed in the Central District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss can be expressed. In addition to the above matters, the Company has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy® brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy® brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that is accrued, if any, or in the amount of any related insurance reimbursements recorded. As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company’s consolidated balance sheets include accrued loss contingencies of approximately $26.2 million and $17.0 million, respectively, and receivables for insurance reimbursements of approximately $21.25 million and $16.25 million, respectively. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, 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.

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company had purchase commitments aggregating approximately $32.8 million at June 30, 2014, 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 $70.6 million at June 30, 2014, which related primarily to sponsorships and other marketing activities.

The Company had operating lease commitments aggregating approximately $13.1 million at June 30, 2014, which related primarily to warehouse and office space.

Value Added Tax (“VAT”) – The Company sought guidance from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”), the VAT taxing authority in the United Kingdom, to determine if the Company should have charged VAT in the United Kingdom on a portion of the Company’s sales beginning May 26, 2010. The Company received guidance from HMRC that confirmed the Company’s position of charging VAT beginning October 3, 2013, pursuant to a new agreement effective on this date. As a result, no VAT pass-through tax for the period beginning on May 26, 2010 through October 3, 2013 is due to HMRC. Furthermore, no tax penalties will be assessed by HMRC relating to this matter.

Legal Proceedings

On October 17, 2012, Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, styled Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier v. Monster Beverage Corporation, 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 filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint on November 19, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on June 7, 2013. The parties attended a court ordered mediation on January 23, 2014. Discovery has commenced but no trial date has been set. 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.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in other complaints containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier lawsuit, each of which the Company believes is also without merit and would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in the event any damages were awarded.

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. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (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.

The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the “Amended Class Action Complaint”). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made 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 named Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.

On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff’s allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on January 17, 2014.

Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on April 16, 2014 that, if approved by the District Court, will resolve the litigation and result in the action being dismissed with prejudice. Preliminary approval hearings with respect to the proposed settlement were held on June 19, 2014 and July 21, 2014, and the District Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on July 29, 2014.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed that certain of its insurance carriers will pay $16.25 million into an escrow account for distribution to a proposed settlement class, certified by the District Court for settlement purposes only and consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during the Class Period. Excluded from the proposed settlement class are the Company’s officers and directors, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest, as well as any putative member of the settlement class who submits a valid and timely request for exclusion in the manner ultimately approved by the District Court. Under the proposed settlement, defendants and various of their related persons and entities will receive a full release of all claims that were or could have been brought in the action as well as all claims that arise out of, are based upon or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts, representations, omissions or other matters involved in the complaints filed in the action or any statement communicated to the public during the Class Period, and the purchase, acquisition or sale of the Company’s stock during the Class Period.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues to deny all of the allegations against them and believes that the claims are without merit. Because the full amount of the proposed settlement will be paid by the Company’s insurance carriers, the settlement will not have an effect on the Company’s results of operations.

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. 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.

San Francisco City Attorney Litigation. On October 31, 2012, the Company received a written request for information from the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco concerning the Company’s advertising and marketing of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks and specifically concerning the safety of its products for consumption by adolescents. In a letter dated March 29, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney threatened to bring suit against the Company if it did not agree to take the following five steps immediately: (i) “Reformulate its products to lower the caffeine content to safe levels”; (ii) “Provide adequate warning labels”; (iii) “Cease promoting over-consumption in marketing”; (iv) “Cease use of alcohol and drug references in marketing”; and (v) “Cease targeting minors.”

(i) The Company Action - On April 29, 2013, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Monster Energy Company, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the San Francisco City Attorney (the “Company Action”) in United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”), styled Monster Beverage Corp., et al. v. Dennis Herrera. The Company seeks a declaration from the Central District Court that the San Francisco City Attorney’s investigation and demands are impermissible and preempted, subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, are unconstitutional in that they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibitions against compelled speech, content-based speech and commercial speech, are impermissibly void-for-vagueness, and/or violate the Commerce Clause. On June 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Company Action, arguing in part that the complaint should be dismissed in light of the San Francisco Action (described below) filed on May 6, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the Central District Court granted in part and denied in part the City Attorney’s motion. On October 17, 2013 (after the San Francisco Action, described below, was remanded to San Francisco Superior Court), the City Attorney filed a renewed motion to dismiss the Company Action and on December 16, 2013, the Central District Court granted the City Attorney’s renewed motion, dismissing the Company Action. The Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on December 18, 2013.

(ii) The San Francisco Action - On May 6, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., styled People Of The State Of California ex rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Monster Beverage Corporation, in San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco Action”). The City Attorney alleges that the Company (1) mislabeled its products as a dietary supplement, in violation of California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, California Health & Safety Code sections 109875 et. seq.; (2) is selling an “adulterated” product because caffeine is not generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) due to the alleged lack of scientific consensus concerning the safety of the levels of caffeine in the Company’s products; and (3) is engaged in unfair and misleading business practices because its marketing (a) does not disclose the health risks that energy drinks pose for children and teens; (b) fails to warn against and promotes unsafe consumption; (c) implicitly promotes mixing of energy drinks with alcohol or drugs; and (d) is deceptive because it includes unsubstantiated claims about the purported special benefits of its “killer” ingredients and “energy blend.” The City Attorney seeks a declaration that the Company has engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; an injunction from performing or proposing to perform any acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; restitution; and civil penalties. On June 3, 2013, the Company removed the San Francisco Action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”). On July 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to remand the San Francisco Action back to state court. On September 18, 2013, the Northern District Court granted the City Attorney’s motion to remand the San Francisco Action back to state court.

On January 15, 2014, the Company filed a demurrer to and motion to strike allegations in the complaint in the San Francisco Action. On March 5, 2014, the Court overruled the demurrer, granted the motion to strike as to one theory for relief pleaded by the City Attorney, and lifted the stay on discovery.

On March 20, 2014, the City Attorney filed an amended complaint, adding allegations supporting the theory for relief as to which the Court had granted the motion to strike. On April 18, 2014, the Company filed a renewed motion to strike, challenging the theory for relief previously rejected by the Court, as well as a motion asking the Court to bifurcate and/or stay claims relating to the safety of Monster Energy® drinks, pending resolution of the ongoing FDA investigation of the safety and labeling of food products to which caffeine is added. On May 22, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s motion to strike and motion to bifurcate and/or stay claims relating to safety. A case management conference is scheduled for August 27, 2014. Discovery is ongoing.

On June 16, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, asking for a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the Company’s motion to bifurcate and/or stay the San Francisco Action, and instead to stay proceedings pending FDA’s investigation. On June 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal denied the petition. On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On July 23, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

The Company denies that it has violated the Unfair Competition Law or any other law and believes that the City Attorney’s claims and demands are preempted and unconstitutional, as alleged in the action the Company filed in the Central District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss can be expressed.

In addition to the above matters, the Company has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy® brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy® brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors.

The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that is accrued, if any, or in the amount of any related insurance reimbursements recorded. As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company’s consolidated balance sheets include accrued loss contingencies of approximately $26.2 million and $17.0 million, respectively, and receivables for insurance reimbursements of approximately $21.25 million and $16.25 million, respectively. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, 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.