19. Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

The Company leases office and retail space, production, distribution and service facilities, and certain equipment under various non-cancellable operating leases, with terms ranging from one to twenty years. Property leases normally require payment of a minimum annual rental plus a pro-rata share of certain landlord operating expenses. Total rent expense, under all operating leases approximated $23.1 million, $25.1 million, and $18.1 million in fiscal years 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. The Company has subleases relating to certain of its operating leases. Sublease income approximated $1.1 million, $0.3 million and $0.3 million for fiscal years 2013, 2012 and 2010, respectively.

In addition, the Company leases a manufacturing facility which is accounted for as a capital lease. The initial term of the lease is 15 years with six additional renewal terms of five years each at the Company's option. The lease requires payment of a minimum annual rental and the Company is responsible for property taxes, insurance and operating expenses.

In June 2012, the Company entered into an arrangement to lease approximately 425,000 square feet located in Burlington, Massachusetts to be constructed. The Burlington facilities will be used by the Domestic segment and will consolidate the three existing Massachusetts facilities that are currently in Reading, Wakefield and Woburn. As of September 28, 2013, approximately 150,000 square feet had been completed and is being used for research and development. The remaining 275,000 square feet is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed during the summer of 2014.

Due to the Company's involvement in the construction project, including its obligations to fund certain costs of construction exceeding amounts incurred by the lessor, the Company is deemed to be the owner of the project, which includes a pre-existing structure on the site, even though the Company is not the legal owner. Accordingly, total project costs incurred during construction are capitalized as construction-in-progress along with a corresponding financing obligation for the project costs that are incurred by the lessor. In addition, the Company capitalized the estimated fair value of the pre-existing structure of $4.1 million at the date construction commenced as construction-in-progress with a corresponding financing obligation. Upon completion of the project, the Company is expecting to have continuing involvement beyond a normal leaseback, and therefore will not be able to record a sale and derecognize the assets when construction is complete. As a result, the lease will be accounted for as a financing transaction and the recorded asset and related financing obligation will remain on the Balance Sheet.

As of September 28, 2013, future minimum lease payments under financing obligations, capital lease obligations and non-cancellable operating leases as well as minimum payments to be received under non-cancellable subleases are as follows (in thousands):

Fiscal Year	Capital Leases			Operating Leases		Subleases			Financing Obligations

2014	$	3,518		$	16,602	$	(1,021	)	$	2,029
2015		3,838			15,534		(1,012	)		8,661
2016		3,837			11,797		(848	)		9,580
2017		3,837			8,631		(690	)		9,580
2018		3,837			5,280		(634	)		9,665
Thereafter		31,980			20,140		(2,156	)		113,722

Total	$	50,847		$	77,984	$	(6,361	)	$	153,237

Less: amount representing interest		(17,075	)

Present value of future minimum lease payments	$	33,772

The above table for financing obligations represents the portion of the future minimum lease payments which have been allocated to the facility under construction in Burlington, Massachusetts and will be recognized as reductions to the financing obligation and as interest expense upon completion of construction.

Legal Proceedings

On October 1, 2010, Keurig, Incorporated, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Keurig"), filed suit against Sturm Foods, Inc. ("Sturm") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00841-SLR) for patent and trademark infringement, false advertising, and other claims, related to Sturm's sale of "Grove Square" beverage cartridges that claim to be compatible with Keurig brewers. On September 13, 2012, the District Court rendered a summary judgment decision in favor of Sturm on the patent claims in the suit. On October 17, 2013, the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's summary judgment decision. Separately, on February 19, 2013, Keurig and Sturm entered into a settlement agreement with respect to the trademark infringement, false advertising, and other claims at issue in the suit, all of which have now been dismissed. The settlement agreement did not materially impact the Company's consolidated financial results of operations.

On November 2, 2011, Keurig filed suit against JBR, INC., d/b/a Rogers Family Company ("Rogers") in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-11941-MBB) for patent infringement related to Rogers' sale of "San Francisco Bay" beverage cartridges for use with Keurig brewers. The suit alleges that the "San Francisco Bay" cartridges infringe certain Keurig patents (U.S. Patent Nos. D502,362, 7,165,488 and 7,347,138). Keurig sought an injunction prohibiting Rogers from selling these cartridges, as well as money damages. In late 2012, Rogers moved for summary judgment of no infringement as to all three asserted patents. On May 24, 2013, the District of Massachusetts granted Rogers' summary judgment motions. Keurig has since appealed the Court's ruling to the Federal Circuit, and that appeal is currently pending.

On May 9, 2011, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics ("CERT"), purporting to act in the public interest, filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court (Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Brad Barry LLC, et al., Case No. BC461182.) against several companies, including the Company, that roast, package, or sell coffee in California. The Brad Barry complaint alleges that coffee contains the chemical acrylamide and that the Company and the other defendants are required to provide warnings under section 25249.6 of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act, better known as Proposition 65. The Brad Barry action has been consolidated for all purposes with another Proposition 65 case filed by CERT on April 13, 2010 over allegations of acrylamide in "ready to drink" coffee sold in restaurants, convenience stores, and do-nut shops. (Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., et al., Case No. BC 415759). The Company was not named in the Starbucks complaint. The Company has joined a joint defense group ("JDG") organized to address CERT's allegations, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. The Court has ordered the case phased for discovery and trial. The first phase of the case, which has been set for trial on September 8, 2014, is limited to three affirmative defenses shared by all defendants in both cases, with other affirmative defenses, plaintiff's prima facie case, and remedies deferred for subsequent phases. Discovery on the first phase of the case is underway. Because this lawsuit is only in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to predict its outcome, the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with its resolution or any potential effect it may have on the Company or its operations.

On January 24, 2012, Teashot, LLC ("Teashot") filed suit against the Company, Keurig and Starbucks Corp. ("Starbucks") in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 12-c v-00189-WJM-KMT) for patent infringement related to the making, using, importing, selling and/or offering for sale of K-Cup packs containing tea. The suit alleges that the Company, Keurig and Starbucks infringe a Teashot patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,895,672). Teashot seeks an injunction prohibiting the Company, Keurig and Starbucks from continued infringement, as well as money damages. Pursuant to the Company's Manufacturing, Sales and Distribution Agreement with Starbucks, the Company is defending and indemnifying Starbucks in connection with the suit. On March 13, 2012, the Company and Keurig, for themselves and Starbucks, filed an answer with the court, generally denying all of Teashot's allegations. The Company and Keurig, for themselves and Starbucks, are vigorously defending this lawsuit. On May 24, 2013, the Company and Keurig, for themselves and Starbucks, filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On July 19, 2013, Teashot filed a motion for partial summary judgment on certain other, unrelated issues. No hearing on the summary judgment motions has been scheduled. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this lawsuit or any potential effect it may have on the Company or its operations.

Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Inquiry

As first disclosed on September 28, 2010, the staff of the SEC's Division of Enforcement continues to conduct an inquiry into matters at the Company. The Company is cooperating fully with the SEC staff's inquiry.

Stockholder Litigation

Two putative securities fraud class actions are presently pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, along with two putative stockholder derivative actions. The first pending putative securities fraud class action was filed on November 29, 2011, and the third putative securities fraud class action was filed on May 7, 2012. A consolidated putative stockholder derivative action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont consists of five separate putative stockholder derivative complaints, the first two were filed after the Company's disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010, while the others were filed on February 10, 2012, March 2, 2012, and July 23, 2012, respectively. In addition, a putative stockholder derivative action is pending in the Superior Court of the State of Vermont for Washington County that was commenced following the Company's disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010.

The first pending putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting practices. The amended complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011. The initial complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011 included counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May 2011 secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. Competing applications were filed and the Court appointed Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirements System, Employees' Retirements System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012. Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012. Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not allege any claims under the Securities Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary common stock offering. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2013 and the briefing of their motions was completed on June 26, 2013. An oral argument on the defendants' motions to dismiss was set for August 27, 2013 and has been rescheduled to December 12, 2013. The underwriters previously named as defendants notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in regard to the claims asserted in this action.

The second pending consolidated putative securities fraud class action, captioned Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00091, is also pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its forward guidance. The amended complaint includes counts for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants. The amended complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2012 and May 2, 2012. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until July 6, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. On July 31, 2012, the court appointed Kambiz Golesorkhi as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of Kahn Swick & Foti LLC as lead counsel. On August 14, 2012, the court granted the parties' stipulated motion for filing of an amended complaint and to set a briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss. Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 23, 2012, adding William C. Daley as an additional lead plaintiff. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 17, 2013 and the briefing of their motions was completed on May 17, 2013. On September 26, 2013, the court issued an order granting defendants' motions and dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice and allowing plaintiffs a 30-day period within which to amend their complaint. On October 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal the court's September 26, 2013 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On November 1, 2013, following the expiration of the 30-day period to amend the complaint, defendants filed a motion for final judgment in District Court. Pursuant to an order issued by the Second Circuit, plaintiff-appellants' brief in the appeal of the District Court's decision is due no later than December 10, 2013 and defendant-appellees' brief is due no later than January 14, 2014.

The first putative stockholder derivative action, a consolidated action captioned In re Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00233, premised on the same allegations asserted in now-dismissed Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227 securities class action complaint and the other pending putative securities class action complaints described above, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. On November 29, 2010, the federal court entered an order consolidating two actions and appointing the firms of Robbins Umeda LLP and Shuman Law Firm as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. On February 23, 2011, the federal court approved a stipulation filed by the parties providing for a temporary stay of that action until the court rules on defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the Horowitz putative securities fraud class action. On March 7, 2012, the federal court approved a further joint stipulation continuing the temporary stay until the court either denies a motion to dismiss the Horowitz putative securities fraud class action or the Horowitz putative securities fraud class action is dismissed with prejudice. On April 27, 2012, the federal court entered an order consolidating the stockholder derivative action captioned Himmel v. Robert P. Stiller, et al., with two additional putative derivative actions, Musa Family Revocable Trust v. Robert P. Stiller, et al., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00029, and Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. Robert P. Stiller, et al., Civ. No. 2:12-cv- 00042. On November 14, 2012, the federal court entered an order consolidating an additional stockholder derivative action, captioned as Henry Cargo v. Robert P. Stiller, et al., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00161, and granting plaintiffs leave to lift the stay for the limited purpose of filing a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint is asserted nominally on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, contribution, and indemnification and seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, attorney's fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. On May 14, 2013, the court approved a joint stipulation filed by the parties providing for a temporary stay of the proceedings until the conclusion of the appeal in the Horowitz putative securities fraud class action. On August 1, 2013, the parties filed a further joint stipulation continuing the temporary stay until the court either denies a motion to dismiss the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action or the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action is dismissed with prejudice, which the court approved on August 2, 2013.

The second putative stockholder derivative action, M. Elizabeth Dickinson v. Robert P. Stiller, et al., Civ. No. 818-11-10, is pending in the Superior Court of the State of Vermont for Washington County. On February 28, 2011, the court approved a stipulation filed by the parties similarly providing for a temporary stay of that action until the federal court rules on defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the Horowitz putative securities fraud class action. As a result of the federal court's ruling in the Horowitz putative securities fraud class action, the temporary stay was lifted. On June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the action, which is asserted nominally on behalf of the Company against certain current and former directors and officers. The amended complaint is premised on the same allegations alleged in the Horowitz, LAMPERS, and Fifield putative securities fraud class actions. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and alleged insider selling by certain of the named defendants. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. On August 7, 2013, the parties filed a further joint stipulation continuing the temporary stay until the court either denies a motion to dismiss the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action or the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action is dismissed with prejudice, which the court approved on August 21, 2013.

The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend all the pending lawsuits. Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on the Company or its operations.