XML 55 R32.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Related Party Transactions | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Related Party Transactions [Abstract] |
Related Party Transactions |
22. | Related Party Transactions
The Coca‑Cola Company The Company’s business consists primarily of the production, marketing and distribution of nonalcoholic beverages of The Coca‑Cola Company, which is the sole owner of the secret formulas under which the primary components of its soft drink products, either concentrate or syrup, are manufactured. As of December 31, 2017, The Coca‑Cola Company owned approximately 35% of the Company’s total outstanding Common Stock, representing approximately 5% of the total voting power of the Company’s Common Stock and Class B Common Stock voting together. As long as The Coca‑Cola Company holds the number of shares of Common Stock it currently owns, it has the right to have a designee proposed by the Company for nomination to the Company’s Board of Directors. J. Frank Harrison, III, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and trustees of certain trusts established for the benefit of certain relatives of J. Frank Harrison, Jr. have agreed to vote the shares of the Company’s Class B Common Stock which they control, representing approximately 86% of the total voting power of the Company’s Common Stock and Class B Common Stock voting together, in favor of such designee. The Coca‑Cola Company does not own any shares of the Company’s Class B Common Stock. The following table and the subsequent descriptions summarize the significant transactions between the Company and The Coca‑Cola Company:
|  | Fiscal Year |
(in thousands) |  | 2017 |  |  | 2016 |  |  | 2015 |
Payments made by the Company to The Coca-Cola Company for: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Concentrate, syrup, sweetener and other purchases |  | $ | 1,085,898 |  |  | $ | 669,783 |  |  | $ | 482,673 |
Customer marketing programs |  |  | 139,542 |  |  |  | 116,537 |  |  |  | 70,754 |
Cold drink equipment parts |  |  | 25,381 |  |  |  | 21,558 |  |  |  | 16,260 |
Glacéau distribution agreement consideration |  |  | 15,598 |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |
Payments made by The Coca-Cola Company to the Company for: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Conversion of bottling agreements |  | $ | 91,450 |  |  | $ | - |  |  | $ | - |
Marketing funding support payments |  |  | 83,177 |  |  |  | 73,513 |  |  |  | 56,284 |
Fountain delivery and equipment repair fees |  |  | 35,335 |  |  |  | 27,624 |  |  |  | 17,400 |
Legacy Facilities Credit (excluding portion related to Mobile, Alabama facility) |  |  | 30,647 |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |
Portion of Legacy Facilities Credit related to Mobile, Alabama facility |  |  | 12,364 |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |
Facilitating the distribution of certain brands and packages to other Coca-Cola bottlers |  |  | 10,474 |  |  |  | 7,193 |  |  |  | 4,670 |
Cold drink equipment |  |  | 8,400 |  |  |  | - |  |  |  | - |
Presence marketing funding support on the Company’s behalf |  |  | 4,843 |  |  |  | 2,064 |  |  |  | 2,415 |
Coca‑Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. The Company has a production arrangement with CCR to buy and sell finished products at cost. In addition, the Company transports product for CCR to the Company’s and other Coca-Cola bottlers’ locations. The following table summarizes purchases and sales under these arrangements between the Company and CCR:
|  | Fiscal Year |
(in thousands) |  | 2017 |  |  | 2016 |  |  | 2015 |
Purchases from CCR |  | $ | 114,891 |  |  | $ | 269,575 |  |  | $ | 229,954 |
Gross sales to CCR |  |  | 76,718 |  |  |  | 72,568 |  |  |  | 30,500 |
Sales to CCR for transporting CCR's product |  |  | 2,036 |  |  |  | 21,940 |  |  |  | 16,523 |
Prior to the sale of BYB to The Coca‑Cola Company, CCR distributed one of the Company’s brands, Tum-E Yummies. During the third quarter of 2015, the Company sold BYB, the subsidiary that owned and distributed Tum-E Yummies to The Coca‑Cola Company and recorded a gain of $22.7 million on the sale. The Company continues to distribute Tum-E Yummies following the sale. Total sales to CCR for Tum-E Yummies were $14.8 million in 2015. As discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company and CCR recently concluded a series of System Transformation Transactions involving several asset purchase and asset exchange transactions for the acquisition and exchange of the following Expansion Territories and Expansion Facilities:
Expansion Territories |  | Definitive Agreement Date |  | Acquisition / Exchange Date
Johnson City and Morristown, Tennessee |  | May 7, 2014 |  | May 23, 2014
Knoxville, Tennessee |  | August 28, 2014 |  | October 24, 2014
Cleveland and Cookeville, Tennessee |  | December 5, 2014 |  | January 30, 2015
Louisville, Kentucky and Evansville, Indiana |  | December 17, 2014 |  | February 27, 2015
Paducah and Pikeville, Kentucky |  | February 13, 2015 |  | May 1, 2015
Lexington, Kentucky for Jackson, Tennessee Exchange |  | October 17, 2014 |  | May 1, 2015
Norfolk, Fredericksburg and Staunton, Virginia and Elizabeth City, North Carolina |  | September 23, 2015 |  | October 30, 2015
Easton and Salisbury, Maryland and Richmond and Yorktown, Virginia |  | September 23, 2015 |  | January 29, 2016
Alexandria, Virginia and Capitol Heights and La Plata, Maryland |  | September 23, 2015 |  | April 1, 2016
Baltimore, Hagerstown and Cumberland, Maryland |  | September 23, 2015 |  | April 29, 2016
Cincinnati, Dayton, Lima and Portsmouth, Ohio and Louisa, Kentucky |  | September 1, 2016 | 1 | October 28, 2016
Anderson, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, South Bend and Terre Haute, Indiana |  | September 1, 2016 |  | January 27, 2017
Indianapolis and Bloomington, Indiana and Columbus and Mansfield, Ohio |  | September 1, 2016 |  | March 31, 2017
Akron, Elyria, Toledo, Willoughby and Youngstown, Ohio |  | April 13, 2017 |  | April 28, 2017
Memphis, Tennessee |  | September 29, 2017 |  | October 2, 2017
Little Rock and West Memphis, Arkansas for Leroy, Mobile and Robertsdale, Alabama, Panama City, Florida, Bainbridge, Columbus and Sylvester, Georgia, Ocean Springs, Mississippi and Somerset, Kentucky (as part of the CCR Exchange Transaction) |  | September 29, 2017 |  | October 2, 2017
Expansion Facilities |  | Definitive Agreement Date |  | Acquisition / Exchange Date
Annapolis, Maryland Make-Ready Center |  | October 30, 2015 |  | October 30, 2015
Sandston, Virginia |  | October 30, 2015 |  | January 29, 2016
Silver Spring and Baltimore, Maryland |  | October 30, 2015 |  | April 29, 2016
Cincinnati, Ohio |  | September 1, 2016 |  | October 28, 2016
Indianapolis and Portland, Indiana |  | September 1, 2016 |  | March 31, 2017
Twinsburg, Ohio |  | April 13, 2017 |  | April 28, 2017
Memphis, Tennessee and West Memphis, Arkansas for Mobile, Alabama (as part of the CCR Exchange Transaction) |  | September 29, 2017 |  | October 2, 2017
| (1) | As amended by Amendment No. 1, dated January 27, 2017.
As part of the transactions for the Expansion Territories, the Company entered into the CBA, as described above in Note 8. Under the CBA, the Company makes a quarterly sub-bottling payment to CCR on a continuing basis for the grant of exclusive rights to distribute, promote, market and sell the authorized brands of The Coca‑Cola Company and related products in the Expansion Territories. The quarterly sub-bottling payment is based on gross profit derived from sales of certain beverages and beverage products that are sold under the same trademarks that identify a covered beverage, beverage product or certain cross-licensed brands. The liability recorded by the Company to reflect the estimated fair value of contingent consideration related to future sub-bottling payments was $381.3 million on December 31, 2017 and $253.4 million on January 1, 2017. Sub-bottling payments to CCR were $16.7 million in 2017, $13.5 million in 2016 and $4.0 million in 2015. Glacéau Distribution Termination Agreement On January 1, 2017, the Company obtained the rights to market, promote, distribute and sell glacéau vitaminwater, glacéau smartwater and glacéau vitaminwater zero drops in certain geographic territories including the District of Columbia and portions of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Company, The Coca‑Cola Company and CCR in June 2016. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company made a payment of $15.6 million during the first quarter of 2017 to The Coca‑Cola Company, which represented a portion of the total payment made by The Coca‑Cola Company to terminate a distribution arrangement with a prior distributor in this territory. Bottling Agreements Conversion Pursuant to a territory conversion agreement entered into by the Company, The Coca‑Cola Company and CCR in September 2015 (as amended), upon the conversion of the Company’s then-existing bottling agreements to the CBA on March 31, 2017, the Company received a one-time fee from CCR, which, after final adjustments made during the second quarter of 2017, totaled $91.5 million. This one-time fee was recorded as a deferred liability and will be amortized as a reduction to cost of sales over a period of 40 years. As of December 31, 2017, $2.3 million of this fee was recorded in other accrued liabilities, $87.4 million of this fee was recorded to other liabilities and $1.8 million was amortized during 2017 on the consolidated financial statements. Legacy Facilities Credit In December 2017, The Coca‑Cola Company agreed to provide the Company the Legacy Facilities Credit, a one-time fee of $43.0 million to compensate for the net economic impact of changes made by The Coca‑Cola Company to the authorized pricing on sales of covered beverages produced at the Company’s Legacy Facilities prior to implementation of new pricing mechanisms included in the RMA. The Company immediately recognized $12.4 million of this fee, representing the portion applicable to a facility in Mobile, Alabama which the Company transferred to CCR as part of the CCR Exchange Transaction. The remaining $30.6 million of the Legacy Facilities Credit, of which $0.7 million was classified as current, was recorded as a deferred liability and will be amortized as a reduction to cost of sales over a period of 40 years. Investment in Southeastern Container In December 2017, CCR redistributed a portion of its investment in Southeastern Container. As a result of this redistribution, the Company increased its investment in Southeastern Container by $6.0 million, which was recorded as other income in the consolidated financial statements. Coca‑Cola Bottlers’ Sales and Services Company, LLC (“CCBSS”) Along with all other Coca‑Cola bottlers in the United States, including CCR, the Company is a member of CCBSS, a company formed in 2003 for the purpose of facilitating various procurement functions and distributing certain specified beverage products of The Coca‑Cola Company with the intention of enhancing the efficiency and competitiveness of the Coca‑Cola bottling system in the United States. CCBSS negotiates the procurement for the majority of the Company’s raw materials, excluding concentrate, and the Company receives a rebate from CCBSS for the purchase of these raw materials. The Company had rebates due from CCBSS of $11.2 million on December 31, 2017 and $7.4 million on January 1, 2017. In addition, the Company pays an administrative fee to CCBSS for its services. The Company incurred administrative fees to CCBSS of $2.3 million in 2017, $1.3 million in 2016 and $0.7 million in 2015, which were classified as accounts receivable, other in the consolidated financial statements. National Product Supply Group The Company is a member of a national product supply group (the “NPSG”), comprised of The Coca‑Cola Company and other Coca‑Cola bottlers who are regional producing bottlers (“RPBs”) in The Coca‑Cola Company’s national product supply system, pursuant to a national product supply governance agreement executed in October 2015 with The Coca‑Cola Company and other RPBs (the “NPSG Governance Agreement”). The stated objectives of the NPSG include, among others, (i) Coca‑Cola system strategic infrastructure investment and divestment planning; (ii) network optimization of all plant to distribution center sourcing; and (iii) new product/packaging infrastructure planning. Under the NPSG Governance Agreement, the NPSG members established certain governance mechanisms, including a governing board (the “NPSG Board”) comprised of a representative of (i) the Company, (ii) The Coca‑Cola Company and (iii) each other RPB. As of December 31, 2017, the NPSG Board consisted of The Coca‑Cola Company, the Company and seven other RPBs. The NPSG Board makes and/or oversees and directs certain key decisions regarding the NPSG, including decisions regarding the management and staffing of the NPSG and the funding for its ongoing operations. Pursuant to the decisions of the NPSG Board made from time to time and subject to the terms and conditions of the NPSG Governance Agreement, each RPB is required to make investments in its respective manufacturing assets and implement Coca‑Cola system strategic investment opportunities consistent with the NPSG Governance Agreement. The Company is also obligated to pay a certain portion of the costs of operating the NPSG. The Company incurred NPSG operating costs of $1.1 million in 2017 and $0.4 million in 2016, which were classified as S,D&A expense in the consolidated financial statements. CONA Services LLC The Company is a member of CONA Services LLC (“CONA”), an entity formed with The Coca‑Cola Company and certain other Coca‑Cola bottlers pursuant to a limited liability company agreement executed in January 2016 (as amended, the “CONA LLC Agreement”) to provide business process and information technology services to its members. Under the CONA LLC Agreement, the business and affairs of CONA are managed by a board of directors comprised of representatives of its members (the “CONA Board”). All directors are entitled to one vote, regardless of the percentage interest in CONA held by each member. The Company currently has the right to designate one of the members of the CONA Board and has a percentage interest in CONA of approximately 20%. Most matters to be decided by the CONA Board require approval by a majority of a quorum of the directors, provided that the approval of 80% of the directors is required to, among other things, require members to make additional capital contributions, approve CONA’s annual operating and capital budgets, and approve capital expenditures in excess of certain agreed upon amounts. Each CONA member is required to make capital contributions to CONA if and when approved by the CONA Board. The Company made capital contributions to CONA of $3.6 million in 2017 and $7.9 million in 2016, which were classified as other assets in the consolidated financial statements. No CONA member may transfer its membership interest (or any portion thereof) except to a purchaser of the member’s bottling business (or any portion thereof) and as permitted under the member’s comprehensive beverage agreement with The Coca‑Cola Company. The CONA LLC Agreement further provides that, if CCR grants any major North American Coca‑Cola bottler other than a CONA member rights to (i) manufacture, produce and package or (ii) market, promote, distribute and sell Coca‑Cola products, CCR will require the bottler to become a CONA member, to implement the CONA System in the bottler’s operations and to enter into a master services agreement with CONA. The Company is also party to an amended and restated master services agreement with CONA (the “CONA MSA”), pursuant to which CONA agreed to make available, and the Company became authorized to use, the Coke One North America system (the “CONA System”), a uniform information technology system developed to promote operational efficiency and uniformity among North American Coca‑Cola bottlers. As part of making the CONA System available, CONA provides the Company with certain business process and information technology services, including the planning, development, management and operation of the CONA System in connection with our direct store delivery and manufacture of products (collectively, the “CONA Services”). The Company is also authorized under the CONA MSA to use the CONA System in connection with its distribution, promotion, marketing, sale and manufacture of beverages it is authorized to distribute or manufacture under the CBA, the RMA or any other agreement with The Coca‑Cola Company, subject to the provisions of the CONA LLC Agreement and any licenses or other agreements relating to products or services provided by third parties and used in connection with the CONA System. In exchange for the Company’s rights to use the CONA System and receive the CONA Services under the CONA MSA, it is charged service fees by CONA based on the number of physical cases of beverages the Company distributed or manufactured during the applicable period in the portion of its territories where the CONA Services have then been implemented. Upon the earlier of (i) all members of CONA beginning to use the CONA System in all territories in which they distribute and manufacture Coca‑Cola products (excluding certain territories of CCR that are expected to be sold to bottlers that are neither members of CONA nor users of the CONA System), or (ii) December 31, 2018, the service fees will be changed to be an amount per physical case of beverages distributed or manufactured in any portion of the Company’s territories equal to the aggregate costs incurred by CONA to maintain and operate the CONA System and provide the CONA Services divided by the total number of cases distributed or manufactured by all of the members of CONA, subject to certain exceptions and provided that the aggregate costs related to CONA’s manufacturing functionality will be borne solely amongst the CONA members who have rights to manufacture beverages of The Coca‑Cola Company. The Company is obligated to pay the service fees under the CONA MSA even if it is not using the CONA System for all or any portion of its distribution and manufacturing operations. The Company incurred CONA Services Fees of $12.6 million in 2017 and $7.5 million in 2016. Snyder Production Center (“SPC”) The Company leases the SPC and an adjacent sales facility, which are located in Charlotte, North Carolina, from Harrison Limited Partnership One (“HLP”). HLP is directly and indirectly owned by trusts of which J. Frank Harrison, III, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Sue Anne H. Wells, a director of the Company, and Deborah H. Everhart, a former director of the Company, are trustees and beneficiaries. Morgan H. Everett, Vice President and a director of the Company, is a permissible, discretionary beneficiary of the trusts that directly or indirectly own HLP. The SPC lease expires on December 31, 2020. The principal balance outstanding under this capital lease was $11.6 million on December 31, 2017 and $14.7 million on January 1, 2017. The annual base rent the Company is obligated to pay under the lease is subject to an adjustment for an inflation factor. Rental payments related to this lease were $4.1 million in 2017, $4.0 million in 2016 and $3.8 million in 2015. Company Headquarters The Company leases its headquarters office facility and an adjacent office facility from Beacon Investment Corporation (“Beacon”). The lease expires on December 31, 2021. J. Frank Harrison, III is Beacon’s majority shareholder and Morgan H. Everett is a minority shareholder. The principal balance outstanding under this capital lease was $12.8 million on December 31, 2017 and $15.5 million on January 1, 2017. The annual base rent the Company is obligated to pay under the lease is subject to adjustment for increases in the Consumer Price Index. The minimum rentals and contingent rental payments related to this lease were as follows:
|  | Fiscal Year |
(in thousands) |  | 2017 |  |  | 2016 |  |  | 2015 |
Minimum rentals |  | $ | 3,509 |  |  | $ | 3,526 |  |  | $ | 3,540 |
Contingent rentals |  |  | 877 |  |  |  | 767 |  |  |  | 682 |
Total rental payments |  | $ | 4,386 |  |  | $ | 4,293 |  |  | $ | 4,222 |
The contingent rentals in 2017, 2016 and 2015 are a result of changes in the Consumer Price Index. Increases or decreases in lease payments that result from changes in the Consumer Price Index were recorded as adjustments to interest expense.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RelatedPartyTransactionsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for related party transactions. Examples of related party transactions include transactions between (a) a parent company and its subsidiary; (b) subsidiaries of a common parent; (c) and entity and its principal owners; and (d) affiliates. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 850 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2122745 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RelatedPartyTransactionsDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration