COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	19. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal 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, 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. No fact discovery was conducted on the merits. On October 12, 2022, the Company and Mr. Prescod notified the court that an agreement in principle to settle had been reached to resolve the case, in connection with the Hezi matter described below. On November 23, 2021, a case related to the Prescod Litigation, Amit Heli and Joseph Nina v. Celsius Holdings, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:21-cv-09892. The Company answered the complaint on February 11, 2022. Like the Prescod Litigation, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the Company’s use of citric acid in its products while simultaneously claiming “no preservatives” constitutes false advertising and unfair or deceptive trade practices. Unlike the Prescod Litigation, in this case the violations alleged are of New York’s General Business Law. As with the Prescod Litigation, 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. On October 12, 2022, the Company and Mr. Prescod notified the courts that an agreement in principle to settle had been reached to resolve the Prescod and Hezi case for an aggregate amount of $7.8 million. The Company and Mr. Prescod submitted the settlement agreement to the court, which entered its preliminary approval on November 23, 2022, and set a final Fairness Hearing for March 31, 2023, for judicial approval. On March 31, 2023, the District Court of the Southern District of New York issued its order granting final approval of the settlement. As of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, $7.8 million was accrued and included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet. Celsius paid the balance of the $7.8 million to the Settlement Administrator on April 17, 2023. On January 8, 2021, the Company received a letter from the SEC Division of Enforcement seeking the production of documents in connection with a non-public fact-finding inquiry by the SEC to determine whether violations of the federal securities laws have occurred. Subsequent to January 8, 2021, the Company received subpoenas for production of documents in connection with the matter. The investigation and requests from the SEC do not represent that the SEC has concluded that the Company or anyone else has violated the federal securities laws. The Company has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the SEC staff in its investigation and requests. At this time, however, the Company cannot predict the length, scope, or results of the investigation or the impact, if any, of the investigation on our results of operations. On March 16, 2022, Christian McCallion filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff McCallion asserts that because of the Company's delay in filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, there was a decline in the market value of the Company’s securities and as a result, class members suffered significant losses and damages. On June 6, 2022 Judge Middlebrooks appointed a lead class plaintiff and the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on August 5, 2022. On March 22, 2023, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, and discovery has commenced with anticipated summary judgment motions later this year. As the Company has previously disclosed in its periodic reports filed with the SEC, prior to filing an application for an automatic fifteen (15) day extension of the original filing date, the Company experienced staffing limitations, unanticipated delays and identified material errors in previous filings. The Company does not believe it has committed any federal securities violations or made false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions as alleged in the complaint. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits. On January 11, 2023, Doreen R. Lampert filed a derivative stockholder complaint against certain of the Company’s directors and a former officer and, nominally, against the Company, in the United Stated District Court of the District of Nevada. Plaintiff Lampert asserts that the same allegations giving rise to the McCallion class action lawsuit also support claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors and former officer, among other claims. The deadline to respond to the complaint will be April 20, 2023. The parties agreed to stay this action pending the close of discovery in the McCallion matter. The Company does not believe its directors or former officer have breached any fiduciary duties or are otherwise liable under the theories plead in the complaint and the Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits. On May 4, 2021, Plaintiffs Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc., Tramar Dillard p/k/a Flo Rida, and D3M Licensing Group, LLC filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Plaintiffs asserted that the Company breached two endorsement and licensing agreements that were entered into between Plaintiffs and the Company in 2014 and 2016. Plaintiffs alleged the Company had reached certain revenue and sales benchmarks set forth in the 2014 agreement that entitled them to receive 750,000 shares of the Company's stock. In addition, Plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to receive unspecified royalties under the 2016 agreement. A jury trial commenced on this matter on January 10, 2023. On January 18, 2023, the jury rendered a verdict against the Company for $82.6 million in compensatory damages. On April 27, 2023, the trial court denied the Company's filed post-trial motions which sought (i) judgment in favor of the Company dismissing the case notwithstanding the verdict based on the plain language of the contracts at issue; (ii) in the alternative, granting a new trial due to the numerous errors at trial; or (iii) in the alternative, reducing the award of damages to $2.1 million, which reflects the Company’s stock price on the date that the jury found the relevant revenue and sales benchmarks at issue were met. The Company filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida on February 21, 2023. The judgment will accrue post-judgement interest at 5.52 percent per year as of February 13, 2023. We believe that the jury verdict is not supported by the facts of the case or applicable law, is the result of significant trial error, and there are strong grounds for appeal. We filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida on February 21, 2023, which is currently proceeding. We intend to vigorously challenge the judgment through all appropriate appeal processes. As a result, we believe that the likelihood that the amount of the judgment will be affirmed is not probable. We currently estimate a range of possible outcomes between $2.1 million and $82.6 million plus interest, and we have accrued a liability as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, reflected in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets, at the lower end of the range, which is the amount we believe is the most likely estimate for a probable loss on this matter. The ultimate loss to the Company of the litigation matter could be materially different from the amount the Company has accrued. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. 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. Commitments 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. If management makes the decision to terminate an agreement without cause, an estimate of expected damages is accrued, and an expense is recorded within operating expenses during the period in which termination was initiated. As of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we have contingent commitment to third parties of $29.3 million and $30.7 million, respectively. Our guarantees are primarily related to third party suppliers and have arisen through the normal course of business. The contingent commitments may have various terms, and none are individually significant. Additionally, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected by the business and economic uncertainty resulting from the pandemic and public health crises related to COVID-19, which is affecting the macro-economic environment.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

19.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal

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, 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. No fact discovery was conducted on the merits. On October 12, 2022, the Company and Mr. Prescod notified the court that an agreement in principle to settle had been reached to resolve the case, in connection with the Hezi matter described below.

On November 23, 2021, a case related to the Prescod Litigation, Amit Heli and Joseph Nina v. Celsius Holdings, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:21-cv-09892. The Company answered the complaint on February 11, 2022. Like the Prescod Litigation, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the Company’s use of citric acid in its products while simultaneously claiming “no preservatives” constitutes false advertising and unfair or deceptive trade practices. Unlike the Prescod Litigation, in this case the violations alleged are of New York’s General Business Law. As with the Prescod Litigation, 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. On October 12, 2022, the Company and Mr. Prescod notified the courts that an agreement in principle to settle had been reached to resolve the Prescod and Hezi case for an aggregate amount of $7.8 million. The Company and Mr. Prescod submitted the settlement agreement to the court, which entered its preliminary approval on November 23, 2022, and set a final Fairness Hearing for March 31, 2023, for judicial approval. On March 31, 2023, the District Court of the Southern District of New York issued its order granting final approval of the settlement. As of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, $7.8 million was accrued and included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet. Celsius paid the balance of the $7.8 million to the Settlement Administrator on April 17, 2023.

On January 8, 2021, the Company received a letter from the SEC Division of Enforcement seeking the production of documents in connection with a non-public fact-finding inquiry by the SEC to determine whether violations of the federal securities laws have occurred. Subsequent to January 8, 2021, the Company received subpoenas for production of documents in connection with the matter. The investigation and requests from the SEC do not represent that the SEC has concluded that the Company or anyone else has violated the federal securities laws. The Company has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the SEC staff in its investigation and requests. At this time, however, the Company cannot predict the length, scope, or results of the investigation or the impact, if any, of the investigation on our results of operations.

On March 16, 2022, Christian McCallion filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff McCallion asserts that because of the Company's delay in filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, there was a decline in the market value of the Company’s securities and as a result, class members suffered significant losses and damages. On June 6, 2022 Judge Middlebrooks appointed a lead class plaintiff and the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on August 5, 2022. On March 22, 2023, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, and discovery has commenced with anticipated summary judgment motions later this year. As the Company has previously disclosed in its periodic reports filed with the SEC, prior to filing an application for an automatic fifteen (15) day extension of the original filing date, the Company experienced staffing limitations, unanticipated delays and identified material errors in previous filings. The Company does not believe it has committed any federal securities violations or made false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions as alleged in the complaint. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits.

On January 11, 2023, Doreen R. Lampert filed a derivative stockholder complaint against certain of the Company’s directors and a former officer and, nominally, against the Company, in the United Stated District Court of the District of Nevada. Plaintiff Lampert asserts that the same

allegations giving rise to the McCallion class action lawsuit also support claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors and former officer, among other claims. The deadline to respond to the complaint will be April 20, 2023. The parties agreed to stay this action pending the close of discovery in the McCallion matter. The Company does not believe its directors or former officer have breached any fiduciary duties or are otherwise liable under the theories plead in the complaint and the Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits.

On May 4, 2021, Plaintiffs Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc., Tramar Dillard p/k/a Flo Rida, and D3M Licensing Group, LLC filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Plaintiffs asserted that the Company breached two endorsement and licensing agreements that were entered into between Plaintiffs and the Company in 2014 and 2016. Plaintiffs alleged the Company had reached certain revenue and sales benchmarks set forth in the 2014 agreement that entitled them to receive 750,000 shares of the Company's stock. In addition, Plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to receive unspecified royalties under the 2016 agreement.

A jury trial commenced on this matter on January 10, 2023. On January 18, 2023, the jury rendered a verdict against the Company for $82.6 million in compensatory damages. On April 27, 2023, the trial court denied the Company's filed post-trial motions which sought (i) judgment in favor of the Company dismissing the case notwithstanding the verdict based on the plain language of the contracts at issue; (ii) in the alternative, granting a new trial due to the numerous errors at trial; or (iii) in the alternative, reducing the award of damages to $2.1 million, which reflects the Company’s stock price on the date that the jury found the relevant revenue and sales benchmarks at issue were met. The Company filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida on February 21, 2023. The judgment will accrue post-judgement interest at 5.52 percent per year as of February 13, 2023.

We believe that the jury verdict is not supported by the facts of the case or applicable law, is the result of significant trial error, and there are strong grounds for appeal. We filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida on February 21, 2023, which is currently proceeding. We intend to vigorously challenge the judgment through all appropriate appeal processes.

As a result, we believe that the likelihood that the amount of the judgment will be affirmed is not probable. We currently estimate a range of possible outcomes between $2.1 million and $82.6 million plus interest, and we have accrued a liability as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, reflected in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets, at the lower end of the range, which is the amount we believe is the most likely estimate for a probable loss on this matter. The ultimate loss to the Company of the litigation matter could be materially different from the amount the Company has accrued. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter.

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.

Commitments

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. If management makes the decision to terminate an agreement without cause, an estimate of expected damages is accrued, and an expense is recorded within operating expenses during the period in which termination was initiated.

As of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we have contingent commitment to third parties of $29.3 million and $30.7 million, respectively. Our guarantees are primarily related to third party suppliers and have arisen through the normal course of business. The contingent commitments may have various terms, and none are individually significant.

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