Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 26, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	18.Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Litigation Relating to Proposed Merger On December 15, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (Berger v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11815-CB) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub, JAB and JAB Holding. The complaint alleges that the members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, (i) initiating a process to sell the Company that undervalues it, (ii) capping the price of the Company at an amount that does not adequately reflect its true value, (iii) failing to sufficiently inform themselves of the Company’s value or disregarding that value and (iv) committing to the proposed transaction at the expense of any alternate potential acquirers. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Acorn, Acquisition Sub, JAB and JAB Holding aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the members of the Company Board. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may be maintained as a class action, certification of the plaintiff as a representative of the class and plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class, an accounting of all damages sustained by the plaintiff and the class and the fees and costs associated with the litigation. From December 21, 2015 through January 19, 2016, three additional putative class action lawsuits (Kaufmann v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11826-CB, Restivo v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11840-CB and Chapel v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11911-CB), were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub and JAB. The complaints allege similar claims and allegations to those in the Berger complaint, except that the Chapel complaint also alleges that the members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by making false and misleading proxy disclosures. The complaints seek similar relief to that sought in the Berger complaint. On January 27, 2016, the Chapel plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Expedited Proceedings. The court has set a hearing on the motion for expedited proceedings for February 2, 2016. On January 27, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit (Montanio v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00019-gwc) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub and JAB. The complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating a proxy statement that was allegedly false and misleading, and which allegedly failed to disclose facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading and (ii) that our directors violated federal securities laws in exercising control over individuals alleged to have disseminated the proxy statement that was allegedly false and misleading. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may be maintained as a class action, certification of the plaintiff as a representative of the class and plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and misleading and in violation of certain federal securities laws, injunctive relief, rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class, and the fees and costs associated with the litigation. The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of the pending lawsuits. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential 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. Prop 65 Litigation 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. Acrylamide is not added to coffee, but forms in trace amounts (parts per billion) as part of a chemical reaction that occurs in the coffee bean when it is roasted. Therefore it is present in all roasted coffee. To date, the Company is unaware of any reliable method for reducing acrylamide levels in coffee without adversely affecting the quality of the product. 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 donut 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 ordered the case phased for discovery and trial. Trial of the first phase of the case commenced on September 8, 2014 and was limited to three affirmative defenses shared by all defendants in both cases. Other affirmative defenses, plaintiff’s prima facie case, and remedies were deferred for subsequent phases if defendants did not prevail on the three Phase 1 defenses. On September 1, 2015, the trial court issued a ruling adverse to defendants on all Phase 1 defenses. As a result, litigation of Phase 2 has commenced and discovery is underway. The precise issues to be litigated in Phase 2 and the scope of discovery have yet to be determined. At this stage of the proceedings, 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. Stockholder Litigation Two consolidated 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 pending putative securities fraud class actions were first filed on November 29, 2011 and June 19, 2015, respectively. The first putative stockholder derivative action is a consolidated action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont that 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. The second putative stockholder derivative action is pending in the Superior Court of the State of Vermont for Washington County and was commenced following the Company’s disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010. The first 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 in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleged 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 sought class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Plaintiffs sought 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, as amended, (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 (the “PSLRA”), 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’ Retirement System, Employees’ Retirement 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 did 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 on December 20, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal the court’s December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a schedule entered by the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June 23, 2014. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on December 1, 2014. On July 24, 2015, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint and remanding the action to the district court. On September 29, 2015, defendants answered the complaint and on October 14, 2015, the district court approved a stipulated discovery schedule for proceedings in the remanded action. 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 consolidated putative securities fraud class action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and consists of the following actions: Blasco v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 3:15-cv-02766-VC; Jazlowiecki v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 5:15-cv-03396-BLF; and Patel v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 3:15-cv-03715. The underlying complaints in the actions allege violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s disclosures relating to its forward guidance, as well as the Company’s public statements concerning the anticipated timing of the launch of Keurig® KOLD™. 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 February 4, 2015 and May 6, 2015 or May 14, 2015 or, in the case of the Patel action, from November 19, 2014 through August 5, 2015. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Pursuant to the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3), stockholders had until August 18, 2015 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. Competing applications were filed and on September 28, 2015, the court consolidated the pending actions, appointed Jessica Lee, Alan Schlussel, and Lawrence E. Wilder as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as co-lead counsel. On October 6, 2015, the court approved a stipulation filed by the parties providing for the filing of a consolidated complaint and setting a briefing schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss. Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on November 6, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 11, 2015. Briefing on the motions to dismiss will be completed on February 12, 2016 and an oral argument is calendared for February 25, 2016. 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 now dismissed Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227 securities class action complaint, the LAMPERS action described above, and the now dismissed 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. 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 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, after the plaintiffs in the Horowitz putative securities fraud class action dismissed their appeal with prejudice, 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. On February 24, 2014, the court approved a further joint stipulation filed by the parties continuing the temporary stay until the appeals court rules on the pending appeal in the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action. The Second Circuit’s July 24, 2015 decision on the LAMPERS appeal described above lifts the temporary stay and requires the parties to confer on scheduling. 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. On April 21, 2014, the court approved a joint stipulation filed by the parties continuing the temporary stay until the appeals court rules on the pending appeal in the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action. The Second Circuit’s July 24, 2015 decision on the LAMPERS appeal lifted the temporary stay and required the parties to confer on scheduling and on October 29, 2015, the court approved a stipulation filed by the parties staying the action pending further litigation in the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action and the consolidated federal derivative action. 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. Antitrust Litigation On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods, including through its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with the launch of the Keurig® 2.0. The TreeHouse complaint sought monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint were substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the Company’s products in various federal district courts. On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB) (the “Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation”). On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the Company opposed. After a hearing, the district court in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation denied JBR’s motion by order dated September 19, 2014. JBR appealed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the appeal was fully briefed on March 3, 2015. On September 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the appeal. On October 26, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of JBR’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014. The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014. On November 25, 2014, all plaintiffs filed amended complaints and on February 2, 2015 the Company again moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs on April 10, 2015, and the Company filed reply briefs on May 11, 2015. Oral argument on the Company’s motions to dismiss was held on July 9, 2015. The court has not yet issued a decision on the motions to dismiss. On August 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas (Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 23CV-15-818) (the “Rainwater Action”). The allegations raised in the Rainwater Action are substantially similar to the allegations in the complaints filed in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. Like the complaint filed by the putative class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation, the Rainwater Action seeks relief under Arkansas state law on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of K-Cup portion packs in the state of Arkansas. On September 21, 2015, the Company removed the Rainwater Action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No. 4:15-cv-590-JLH). On September 25, 2015, the Company filed a Notice of Potential Tag-Along Action with the JPML, and on November 10, 2015, the JPML ordered the transfer of the Rainwater Action to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against the Company and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee L.P. (“Club Coffee”), a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods, claiming damages of CDN $600 million and asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by the Company. Following the filing by the Company and Keurig Canada of a notice of motion for a motion to strike the claims made by Club Coffee for failure to state a reasonable cause of action, on August 31, 2015 Club Coffee filed a second amended statement of claim against the Company and Keurig Canada Inc. claiming the same amount of damages as in the original statement of claim. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of the pending lawsuits. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential 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. Employment Class Action A putative employment class action, captioned Alvaro Sanchez v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Does 1 - 100, was filed against Keurig in the Superior Court of California County of Monterey on July 14, 2015. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to pay proper wages and provide certain breaks to non-exempt employees of the Company’s processing plant located in Castroville, California during the class period (which is defined as the period of time beginning four years before the commencement of the action through the date on which judgment on the action becomes final). The complaint seeks alleged damages, attorneys’ fees, penalties, and injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of the putative class. The Company filed its Answer denying all substantive allegations and removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this complaint. 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. Product Liability In November 2014, the Company informed the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and Health Canada that it identified a potential issue involving certain Keurig® MINI Plus (non-reservoir) brewers (K10 and B31 models), where on very rare occasions, hot liquid could escape the brewer. On December 23, 2014 the Company issued a recall for its Keurig® MINI Plus brewers. On April 17, 2015 the CPSC notified the Company that it had commenced a routine investigation of the recall and the Company is cooperating with the CPSC on this matter. These actions did not materially change the Company’s estimate for the reserve or the anticipated insurance recovery; however, as the total charge recorded to date is based on estimates, the Company’s ultimate liability and recovery may exceed or be less than the amounts recorded. Based on current information known to the Company, the Company believes that this issue will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

18.Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Litigation Relating to Proposed Merger

On December 15, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (Berger v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11815-CB) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub, JAB and JAB Holding. The complaint alleges that the members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, (i) initiating a process to sell the Company that undervalues it, (ii) capping the price of the Company at an amount that does not adequately reflect its true value, (iii) failing to sufficiently inform themselves of the Company’s value or disregarding that value and (iv) committing to the proposed transaction at the expense of any alternate potential acquirers. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Acorn, Acquisition Sub, JAB and JAB Holding aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the members of the Company Board. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may be maintained as a class action, certification of the plaintiff as a representative of the class and plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class, an accounting of all damages sustained by the plaintiff and the class and the fees and costs associated with the litigation.

From December 21, 2015 through January 19, 2016, three additional putative class action lawsuits (Kaufmann v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11826-CB, Restivo v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11840-CB and Chapel v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11911-CB), were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub and JAB. The complaints allege similar claims and allegations to those in the Berger complaint, except that the Chapel complaint also alleges that the members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by making false and misleading proxy disclosures. The complaints seek similar relief to that sought in the Berger complaint. On January 27, 2016, the Chapel plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Expedited Proceedings. The court has set a hearing on the motion for expedited proceedings for February 2, 2016.

On January 27, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit (Montanio v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00019-gwc) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub and JAB. The complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating a proxy statement that was allegedly false and misleading, and which allegedly failed to disclose facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading and (ii) that our directors violated federal securities laws in exercising control over individuals alleged to have disseminated the proxy statement that was allegedly false and misleading. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may be maintained as a class action, certification of the plaintiff as a representative of the class and plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and misleading and in violation of certain federal securities laws, injunctive relief, rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class, and the fees and costs associated with the litigation. The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage.

The Company intends to vigorously defend all of the pending lawsuits. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential 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.

Prop 65 Litigation

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. Acrylamide is not added to coffee, but forms in trace amounts (parts per billion) as part of a chemical reaction that occurs in the coffee bean when it is roasted. Therefore it is present in all roasted coffee. To date, the Company is unaware of any reliable method for reducing acrylamide levels in coffee without adversely affecting the quality of the product. 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 donut 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 ordered the case phased for discovery and trial. Trial of the first phase of the case commenced on September 8, 2014 and was limited to three affirmative defenses shared by all defendants in both cases. Other affirmative defenses, plaintiff’s prima facie case, and remedies were deferred for subsequent phases if defendants did not prevail on the three Phase 1 defenses. On September 1, 2015, the trial court issued a ruling adverse to defendants on all Phase 1 defenses. As a result, litigation of Phase 2 has commenced and discovery is underway. The precise issues to be litigated in Phase 2 and the scope of discovery have yet to be determined.

At this stage of the proceedings, 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.

Stockholder Litigation

Two consolidated 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 pending putative securities fraud class actions were first filed on November 29, 2011 and June 19, 2015, respectively. The first putative stockholder derivative action is a consolidated action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont that 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. The second putative stockholder derivative action is pending in the Superior Court of the State of Vermont for Washington County and was commenced following the Company’s disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010.

The first 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 in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleged 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 sought class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Plaintiffs sought 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, as amended, (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 (the “PSLRA”), 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’ Retirement System, Employees’ Retirement 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 did 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 on December 20, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal the court’s December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a schedule entered by the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June 23, 2014. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on December 1, 2014.

On July 24, 2015, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint and remanding the action to the district court. On September 29, 2015, defendants answered the complaint and on October 14, 2015, the district court approved a stipulated discovery schedule for proceedings in the remanded action. 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 consolidated putative securities fraud class action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and consists of the following actions: Blasco v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 3:15-cv-02766-VC; Jazlowiecki v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 5:15-cv-03396-BLF; and Patel v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 3:15-cv-03715. The underlying complaints in the actions allege violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s disclosures relating to its forward guidance, as well as the Company’s public statements concerning the anticipated timing of the launch of Keurig® KOLD™. 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 February 4, 2015 and May 6, 2015 or May 14, 2015 or, in the case of the Patel action, from November 19, 2014 through August 5, 2015. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Pursuant to the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3), stockholders had until August 18, 2015 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. Competing applications were filed and on September 28, 2015, the court consolidated the pending actions, appointed Jessica Lee, Alan Schlussel, and Lawrence E. Wilder as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as co-lead counsel. On October 6, 2015, the court approved a stipulation filed by the parties providing for the filing of a consolidated complaint and setting a briefing schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss. Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on November 6, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 11, 2015. Briefing on the motions to dismiss will be completed on February 12, 2016 and an oral argument is calendared for February 25, 2016.

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 now dismissed Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227 securities class action complaint, the LAMPERS action described above, and the now dismissed 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. 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 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, after the plaintiffs in the Horowitz putative securities fraud class action dismissed their appeal with prejudice, 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. On February 24, 2014, the court approved a further joint stipulation filed by the parties continuing the temporary stay until the appeals court rules on the pending appeal in the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action. The Second Circuit’s July 24, 2015 decision on the LAMPERS appeal described above lifts the temporary stay and requires the parties to confer on scheduling.

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. On April 21, 2014, the court approved a joint stipulation filed by the parties continuing the temporary stay until the appeals court rules on the pending appeal in the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action. The Second Circuit’s July 24, 2015 decision on the LAMPERS appeal lifted the temporary stay and required the parties to confer on scheduling and on October 29, 2015, the court approved a stipulation filed by the parties staying the action pending further litigation in the LAMPERS putative securities fraud class action and the consolidated federal derivative action.

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.

Antitrust Litigation

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods, including through its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with the launch of the Keurig® 2.0. The TreeHouse complaint sought monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint were substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the Company’s products in various federal district courts. On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB) (the “Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation”). On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the Company opposed. After a hearing, the district court in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation denied JBR’s motion by order dated September 19, 2014. JBR appealed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the appeal was fully briefed on March 3, 2015. On September 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the appeal. On October 26, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of JBR’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014. The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014. On November 25, 2014, all plaintiffs filed amended complaints and on February 2, 2015 the Company again moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs on April 10, 2015, and the Company filed reply briefs on May 11, 2015. Oral argument on the Company’s motions to dismiss was held on July 9, 2015. The court has not yet issued a decision on the motions to dismiss.

On August 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas (Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 23CV-15-818) (the “Rainwater Action”). The allegations raised in the Rainwater Action are substantially similar to the allegations in the complaints filed in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. Like the complaint filed by the putative class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation, the Rainwater Action seeks relief under Arkansas state law on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of K-Cup portion packs in the state of Arkansas. On September 21, 2015, the Company removed the Rainwater Action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No. 4:15-cv-590-JLH). On September 25, 2015, the Company filed a Notice of Potential Tag-Along Action with the JPML, and on November 10, 2015, the JPML ordered the transfer of the Rainwater Action to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.

On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against the Company and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee L.P. (“Club Coffee”), a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods, claiming damages of CDN $600 million and asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by the Company. Following the filing by the Company and Keurig Canada of a notice of motion for a motion to strike the claims made by Club Coffee for failure to state a reasonable cause of action, on August 31, 2015 Club Coffee filed a second amended statement of claim against the Company and Keurig Canada Inc. claiming the same amount of damages as in the original statement of claim.

Employment Class Action

A putative employment class action, captioned Alvaro Sanchez v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Does 1 - 100, was filed against Keurig in the Superior Court of California County of Monterey on July 14, 2015. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to pay proper wages and provide certain breaks to non-exempt employees of the Company’s processing plant located in Castroville, California during the class period (which is defined as the period of time beginning four years before the commencement of the action through the date on which judgment on the action becomes final). The complaint seeks alleged damages, attorneys’ fees, penalties, and injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of the putative class. The Company filed its Answer denying all substantive allegations and removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this complaint. 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.

Product Liability

In November 2014, the Company informed the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and Health Canada that it identified a potential issue involving certain Keurig® MINI Plus (non-reservoir) brewers (K10 and B31 models), where on very rare occasions, hot liquid could escape the brewer. On December 23, 2014 the Company issued a recall for its Keurig® MINI Plus brewers. On April 17, 2015 the CPSC notified the Company that it had commenced a routine investigation of the recall and the Company is cooperating with the CPSC on this matter. These actions did not materially change the Company’s estimate for the reserve or the anticipated insurance recovery; however, as the total charge recorded to date is based on estimates, the Company’s ultimate liability and recovery may exceed or be less than the amounts recorded. Based on current information known to the Company, the Company believes that this issue will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.