XML 32 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In November of 2020, McGovern Capital, Inc. and Kevin McGovern (collectively “McGovern”) filed a claim in arbitration related to its Representative Agreement with Celsius Holdings, Inc. as amended by the first amendment dated August 6, 2016. Pursuant to the Representative Agreement, McGovern is entitled to receive a fee of three percent (3%) of “Net Revenues” received by the Company from sales of the Company’s Products in the People’s Republic of China for a period of four years from Initial Commercial Sale (which was September 1, 2017). “Net Revenues” are defined in the Representative Agreement as “the Company’s revenues net of actual discounts applied, credits and returns.” Effective January 1, 2019, the Company restructured its China operations from a distribution arrangement with Qifeng Food Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd. (“Qifeng”), to a license and royalty arrangement and a loan, pursuant to which Qifeng will market and distribute the Company’s products in China, and Celsius will receive an annual royalty payment. The Company intends to pay McGovern its percentage of the annual royalty payment, but McGovern has objected claiming that McGovern is entitled to be paid commissions on the entire royalty payment and the amount of the loan to Qifeng. The Company intends to defend against McGovern’s claims vigorously and has filed a counterclaim related to McGovern’s failure to comply with the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the Representative Agreement. This matter is still in its early stages and the Company is unable to predict the outcome at this time.

In March of 2019, Daniel Prescod filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number 19STCV09321, filed on March 19, 2019, (the “Prescod Litigation”). Daniel Prescod asserts that the Company’s use of citric acid in its products while simultaneously claiming “no preservatives” violates California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., and California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq., because citric acid acts as a preservative. The Company does not use citric acid as a preservative in its products, but rather as a flavoring, and therefore it believes that its “no preservatives” claim is fair and not deceptive. A motion to certify the case as a class action was filed and on August 2, 2021, that motion was granted. However, the Company also has a motion for summary adjudication pending and that motion would be dispositive of plaintiff’s claims if granted. No fact discovery has been conducted on the merits and this matter is still in its initial stages. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits. Since merits discovery is still in its initial stages, we are unable to predict the outcome at this time.

In addition to the foregoing, from time to time, we may become party to litigation or other legal proceedings that we consider to be a part of the ordinary course of our business.

The Company has entered into distribution agreements with liquidated damages in case the Company cancels the distribution agreements without Cause. Cause has been defined in various ways. It is management’s belief that no such agreement has created any liability as of June 30, 2021.

Additionally, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected by the pandemic and public health crises related to the COVID-19 outbreak which is affecting the macro-economic environment.