11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is obligated under various non-cancellable lease agreements providing for office space, warehouse space, and automobiles that expire at various dates through the year 2023.

Rent expense under operating leases was $10.7 million, $6.8 million and $7.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Future minimum rental payments at December 31, 2015 under the operating leases referred to above are as follows:

Year Ending December 31:

2016	$	7,202
2017	1,430
2018	515
2019	460
2020	378
2021 and thereafter	740

	$	10,725

Contractual obligations – The Company has the following contractual obligations related primarily to sponsorships and other commitments as of December 31, 2015:

Year Ending December 31:

2016	$	67,356
2017	39,388
2018	4,811
2019	60
2020	-
2021 and thereafter	-

	$	111,615

Purchase Commitments – The Company has purchase commitments aggregating approximately $40.8 million at December 31, 2015, which represent 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 purchases various raw material items, including, but not limited to, flavors, ingredients, dietary ingredients, containers, milk, cream and protein, from a limited number of resources. An interruption in supply from any of such resources could result in the Company’s inability to produce certain products for limited or possibly extended periods of time. The aggregate value of purchases from suppliers of such limited resources described above for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $332.0 million, $292.8 million and $282.5 million, respectively.

During February 2016, the Company entered into an agreement to acquire approximately 49 acres of land, located in Rialto, CA, for a purchase price of approximately $39 million. The purchase is subject to various conditions precedent that must be satisfied prior to the closing. If the Company ultimately acquires the land, it intends to build an approximately 1,000,000 square-foot building to replace its current leased warehouse and distribution space in Corona, CA.

Guarantees – The Company from time to time enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require the Company to indemnify parties against third party claims. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors and employees under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationship, (ii) certain distribution or purchase agreements under which the Company may have to indemnify the Company’s customers from any claim, liability or loss arising out of any actual or alleged injury or damages suffered in connection with the consumption or purchase of the Company’s products or the use of Company trademarks, and (iii) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for liabilities and other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises. The terms of such obligations vary and typically, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated. Generally, the Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate to cover any resulting liabilities or claims.

Litigation – The Company has been named a defendant in various personal injury lawsuits, claiming that the death or other serious injury of the plaintiffs was caused by consumption of Monster Energy® brand energy drinks. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties and wrongful death. The Company believes that each complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. The Company also believes that any damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

State Attorney General Inquiry – In July 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the Attorney General for the State of New York in connection with its investigation concerning the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand energy drinks. Production of documents pursuant to that subpoena was completed in approximately May 2014.

On August 6, 2014, the Attorney General for the State of New York issued a second subpoena seeking additional documents and the deposition of a Company employee. On September 8, 2014, the Company moved to quash the second subpoena in the Supreme Court, New York County. The motion was fully briefed and was argued on March 17, 2015. No decision has been rendered. 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 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 sought 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, 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. The appeal is fully briefed and is set for argument on April 7, 2016.

(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 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 sought 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.

After a motion to strike filed by the Company was granted in part, 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, as well as a motion asking the Court to bifurcate and/or stay claims relating to the safety of Monster Energy® brand 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.

On September 5, 2014, the City Attorney filed a second amended complaint, adding Monster Energy Company as a defendant. The Company and Monster Energy Company filed answers to the second amended complaint on October 4, 2014 and November 10, 2014, respectively. Discovery is ongoing.

The Court has set the case for a bench trial for April 10-17, 2017.

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.

The actions or investigations described above have not progressed to a point where a reasonably possible range of losses associated with their ultimate outcome can be estimated at this time. If the final resolution of any such litigation or proceedings is unfavorable, the Company’s financial condition, operating results and cash flows could be materially affected.

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.

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.

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 December 31, 2015, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of approximately $2.8 million.