Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2013
Legal Proceedings
Legal Proceedings	15. 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 side of the suit. Keurig has since appealed to the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals the District Court’s summary judgment decision, and oral argument for that appeal is scheduled to take place before the Federal Circuit on August 6, 2013. 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 our 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 violate 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 from 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 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 are violating 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 its 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 Three putative securities fraud class actions have been filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, along with two putative stockholder derivative actions. The first consolidated putative securities fraud class action was commenced following the Company’s disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010. The second 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 consolidated putative securities fraud class action, organized under the caption Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. The underlying complaints in the consolidated action allege violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s disclosures relating to its revenues and its forward guidance. The complaints include counts for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants. The plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the Company’s securities between July 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010 or September 29, 2010. The complaints seek class certification, compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until November 29, 2010 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. On December 20, 2010, the court appointed Jerzy Warchol, Robert M. Nichols, Jennifer M. Nichols, Marc Schmerler and Mike Shanley lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead counsel and the Law Office of Brian Hehir and Woodward & Kelley, PLLC as liaison counsel. On December 29, 2010 and January 3, 2011, two of the plaintiffs in the underlying actions in the consolidated proceedings, Russell Blank and Dan M. Horowitz, voluntarily dismissed their cases without prejudice. Pursuant to a stipulated motion granted by the court on November 29, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 23, 2011, and defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on April 25, 2011. The court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on January 5, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the court issued an order granting defendants’ motions and dismissing the consolidated complaint without prejudice and the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on March 27, 2012. On April 9, 2012, the parties filed a stipulated motion for filing of the amended complaint and to set a briefing schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss. Briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss was completed on August 29, 2012. On March 20, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On April 19, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice appealing the court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 24, 2013, plaintiff-appellants filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice, and which the appeals court granted on July 29, 2013. The second 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, was filed on November 29, 2011 and 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 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 defendant's motions to dismiss is set for August 27, 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 third consolidated putative securities fraud class action, captioned Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00091, 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 forward guidance. The amended complaint includes counts for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for 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. 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 the 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, 2012, the parties filed a further joint stipulation continuing the temporary stay until the court either denies a motion to dismiss the LAMPERS punitive fraud class action or the LAMPERS punitive fraud class action is dismissed with prejudice. 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. Defendants are due to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the complaint on August 23, 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.

15. 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 side of the suit. Keurig has since appealed to the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals the District Court’s summary judgment decision, and oral argument for that appeal is scheduled to take place before the Federal Circuit on August 6, 2013. 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 our 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 violate 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 from 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 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 are violating 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 its 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

Three putative securities fraud class actions have been filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, along with two putative stockholder derivative actions. The first consolidated putative securities fraud class action was commenced following the Company’s disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010. The second 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 consolidated putative securities fraud class action, organized under the caption Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. The underlying complaints in the consolidated action allege violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s disclosures relating to its revenues and its forward guidance. The complaints include counts for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants. The plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the Company’s securities between July 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010 or September 29, 2010. The complaints seek class certification, compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until November 29, 2010 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. On December 20, 2010, the court appointed Jerzy Warchol, Robert M. Nichols, Jennifer M. Nichols, Marc Schmerler and Mike Shanley lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead counsel and the Law Office of Brian Hehir and Woodward & Kelley, PLLC as liaison counsel. On December 29, 2010 and January 3, 2011, two of the plaintiffs in the underlying actions in the consolidated proceedings, Russell Blank and Dan M. Horowitz, voluntarily dismissed their cases without prejudice. Pursuant to a stipulated motion granted by the court on November 29, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 23, 2011, and defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on April 25, 2011. The court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on January 5, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the court issued an order granting defendants’ motions and dismissing the consolidated complaint without prejudice and the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on March 27, 2012. On April 9, 2012, the parties filed a stipulated motion for filing of the amended complaint and to set a briefing schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss. Briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss was completed on August 29, 2012. On March 20, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On April 19, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice appealing the court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 24, 2013, plaintiff-appellants filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice, and which the appeals court granted on July 29, 2013.

The second 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, was filed on November 29, 2011 and 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 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 defendant's motions to dismiss is set for August 27, 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 third consolidated putative securities fraud class action, captioned Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00091, 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 forward guidance. The amended complaint includes counts for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for 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.

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 the 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, 2012, the parties filed a further joint stipulation continuing the temporary stay until the court either denies a motion to dismiss the LAMPERS punitive fraud class action or the LAMPERS punitive fraud class action is dismissed with prejudice.

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. Defendants are due to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the complaint on August 23, 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.