XML 35 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESCommitments. We are in various stages of financing projects with industrial revenue bond transactions for our facilities located in Kentucky. The bonds allow a 30 year real property tax abatement on our renovated and newly-constructed warehouse buildings and distilleries in Kentucky. We have been approved for $25,000 of industrial revenue bonds with the City of Williamstown Kentucky, and have used approximately $11,000. Additionally, we have been approved for $50,000 of industrial revenue bonds with Nelson County Kentucky and have used approximately $33,000. The City of Williamstown and Nelson County issued the industrial revenue bonds to us and then used the proceeds to purchase the land and warehouse from us. The Company recorded as property, plant, and equipment, net, on its Consolidated Balance Sheet under a capital lease. The lease payment on the facilities is sufficient to pay principal and interest on the bonds. Because the Company owns all of the outstanding bonds, has a legal right to set-off, and intends to set-off the corresponding lease and interest payment, the Company netted the capital lease obligation with the bond asset and, in turn, reflected no amount for the obligation or the corresponding asset on its Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2021 and 2020. Contingencies. There are various legal and regulatory proceedings involving the Company and its subsidiaries. The Company accrues estimated costs for a contingency when management believes that a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Dryer Fire Incident. During November 2020, the Company experienced a fire at the Atchison facility. The fire damaged certain equipment in the facility’s feed drying operations and caused temporary loss of production time. The Company impaired $681 of spare parts and other inventory which was recorded in Cost of sales on the Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2020. Additionally, the Company incurred $486 in losses from the write off of property, plant and equipment, which was recorded as a component of Operating income on the Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2020. At December 31, 2021, the Company received a legally binding commitment from its insurance carrier for final settlement of $43,688, $27,363 related to business interruption and $16,325 for the damaged dryer. As of December 31, 2021, $7,188 of the insurance recovery was recorded as Receivables on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The Company recorded a settlement related to business interruption from its insurance carrier of $23,583 and $3,780 for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The business interruption portion of the settlement was recorded as a reduction of Cost of sales on the Consolidated Statement of Income and the insurance recoveries for the replacement of the damaged dryer was recorded as Insurance recoveries on the Consolidated Statement of Income. The Company finalized the construction of the replacement drying system and placed this dryer into service during 2021. Ransomware Cyber-Attack. In May 2020, the Company was affected by a ransomware cyber-attack that temporarily disrupted production at its Atchison facilities. The Company’s financial information was not affected and there is no evidence that any sensitive or confidential company, supplier, customer or employee data was improperly accessed or extracted from our network. The Company has insurance related to this event and partially recovered $633 in December 2020 and received a final recovery of $230 in December 2021 as a reduction of Cost of sales on the Consolidated Statement of Income. Shareholder matters. In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for District of Kansas, naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs sought to pursue claims on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's Common Stock during certain specified periods (the “Class Periods”). On May 28, 2020, the two lawsuits were consolidated and the Court appointed City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust as lead plaintiff. The consolidated action is captioned In re MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation and the file is maintained under Master File No. 2:20-cv-2090-DDCJPO. On July 22, 2020, the Retirement Trust filed a consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s forecasts of sales of aged whiskey, and that, as a result the Company's Common Stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Periods. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and unspecified equitable relief, but did not specify the amount of damages being sought. On September 8, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On August 31, 2021, the court issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Motion to Dismiss dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The Plaintiff had until September 30, 2021 to file a notice of appeal and the Plaintiff did not appeal. On May 11, 2020, Mitchell Dorfman, a shareholder in MGP, filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, under the caption Dorfman, derivatively on behalf of MGP Ingredients v. Griffin, et al., Case 2:20-cv-02239. On June 4, 2020, Justin Carter, a shareholder in MGP, filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, under the caption Carter, derivatively on behalf of MGP Ingredients v. Griffin, et al., Case 2:20-cv-02281. On June 18, 2020, Alexandra Kearns, a shareholder in MGP, filed an action in the District Court of Atchison County, Kansas, under the caption Kearns, derivatively on behalf of MGP Ingredients v. Griffin, et al., Case 2020-CV-000042. The defendants are certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The Company is a nominal defendant in each action. Plaintiffs allege that the Company was damaged as a result of the conduct of the individual defendants alleged in the MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation, the repurchase of company stock at artificially inflated prices, and compensation paid to the individual defendants. The Complaint in Dorfman asserts claims for violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Complaint in Carter asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Petition in Kearns asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The pleadings pray for an award of compensatory damages, including interest, in favor of the Company, for equitable relief related to the Company’s corporate governance, for disgorgement of compensation, and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 13, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in Dorfman. On August 13, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Kearns action pending the resolution of Dorfman. On November 3, 2020, the court entered an order providing that Defendants’ response to the Carter Complaint shall be due 14 days after a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss filed in Dorfman. On March 31, 2021, the Dorfman court issued a Memorandum and Order in which it granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s federal claims, dismissed those claims without prejudice, denied without prejudice defendants’ Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s state claims, and stayed the case pending the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Herington v. City of Wichita. Herington involved the issue of whether a federal decision that determines federal claims and dismisses pendent state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction precludes the reassertion of the state law claims in state court. On April 14, 2021, defendants in Carter filed a Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s federal claims and to stay plaintiff’s state claims until fourteen days after the Court rules on the state claims in Dorfman. On November 9, 2021, the Carter court entered a Memorandum and Order dismissing plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice, denying the Motion to Dismiss as it applies to plaintiff’s state law claims, and staying the case pending a decision in Herington. On December 17, 2021, the Kansas Supreme Court issued its decision in Herington. The court held that where a federal court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice, the Kansas common law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a litigant from bringing those claims in state court. On January 4, 2022, the Carter court entered a Memorandum and Order directing the clerk of the court to enter Judgment (1) dismissing plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice (2) dismissing plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. On January 11, 2022, the court entered a Memorandum and Order in Dorfman directing the clerk of the court to enter Judgment (1) dismissing plaintiff’s federal claims without prejudice and (2) dismissing plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. The Judgment has been entered in each case. On January 10, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion in Dorfman requesting the dismissal of the action without prejudice. The Kearns court has not yet taken any action in response to the court’s Memorandum and Order in Dorfman. On November 25, 2020, Kenneth Laury filed an action in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas under the caption Laury v. MGP Ingredients, Inc., Case Number: 2020-CV-000609. The Petition alleges that plaintiff commenced the action under K.S.A. 17-6510 to enforce his alleged right to inspect books and records of the Company, in order to enable him to evaluate possible misconduct by the Company’s Board of Directors and management. On January 8, 2021, the Company filed an answer to the Petition, denying that plaintiff has satisfied the statutory requirements for his demand. On May 13, 2021, the parties stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of the action. 2016 Atchison Chemical Release. A chemical release occurred at the Company’s Atchison facility on October 21, 2016, which resulted in emissions venting into the air (“the Atchison Chemical Release”). Private plaintiffs have initiated, and additional private plaintiffs may initiate, legal proceedings for damages resulting from the Atchsion Chemical Release, but the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of any such damages that might result. The Company’s insurance may provide coverage of any damages to private plaintiffs, subject to a deductible of $250, but certain regulatory fines or penalties may not be covered and there can be no assurance to the amount or timing of possible insurance recoveries if ultimately claimed by the Company.

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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration