XML 40 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies For a detailed discussion about the Company’s commitments and contingencies, see Note 24, “Commitments and Contingencies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2018 Form 10-K. During the nine months ended March 31, 2019, other than the following, or as otherwise disclosed in these footnotes in the current Form 10-Q, there were no material changes in the Company’s commitments and contingencies. Expansion Project Contract In the third quarter of fiscal 2018, the Company commenced a project to expand its production lines (the “Expansion Project”) in the New Facility, including expanding capacity to support the transition of acquired business volumes under a guaranteed maximum price contract of up to $19.3 million. In the nine months ended March 31, 2019, the Company paid $10.6 million for machinery and equipment expenditures associated with the Expansion Project. Since inception of the contract through March 31, 2019, the Company has paid a total of $18.9 million. Purchase Commitments As of March 31, 2019, the Company had committed to purchase green coffee inventory totaling $60.4 million under fixed-price contracts and to other purchases totaling $16.0 million under non-cancelable purchase orders related primarily to the purchase of finished goods inventory. As of March 31, 2019, the Company had commitments of $0.9 million for roasting equipment ordered for the New Facility which will be accrued by the Company upon delivery and acceptance of the equipment in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019. Legal Proceedings Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) v. Brad Berry Company Ltd., et al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles On August 31, 2012, CERT filed an amendment to a private enforcement action adding a number of companies as defendants, the Company’s subsidiary, Coffee Bean International, Inc., which sell coffee in California under the State of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65. The suit alleges that the defendants have failed to issue clear and reasonable warnings in accordance with Proposition 65 that the coffee they produce, distribute, and sell contains acrylamide. This lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Court”). CERT has demanded that the alleged violators remove acrylamide from their coffee or provide Proposition 65 warnings on their products and pay $2,500 per day for each and every violation while they are in violation of Proposition 65. Acrylamide is produced naturally in connection with the heating of many foods, especially starchy foods, and is believed to be caused by the Maillard reaction, though it has also been found in unheated foods such as olives. With respect to coffee, acrylamide is produced when coffee beans are heated during the roasting process-it is the roasting itself that produces the acrylamide. While there has been a significant amount of research concerning proposals for treatments and other processes aimed at reducing acrylamide content of different types of foods, to our knowledge there is currently no known strategy for reducing acrylamide in coffee without negatively impacting the sensorial properties of the product. The Company has joined a Joint Defense Group, or JDG, and, along with the other co-defendants, has answered the complaint, denying, generally, the allegations of the complaint, including the claimed violation of Proposition 65 and further denying CERT’s right to any relief or damages, including the right to require a warning on products. The Joint Defense Group contends that based on proper scientific analysis and proper application of the standards set forth in Proposition 65, exposures to acrylamide from the coffee products pose no significant risk of cancer and, thus, these exposures are exempt from Proposition 65’s warning requirement. The JDG filed a pleading responding to claims and asserting affirmative defenses on January 22, 2013. The Court initially limited discovery to the four largest defendants, so the Company was not initially required to participate in discovery. The Court decided to handle the trial in two “phases,” and the “no significant risk level” defense, the First Amendment defense, and the federal preemption defense were tried in the first phase. Trial commenced on September 8, 2014, and testimony completed on November 4, 2014, for the three “Phase 1” defenses. Following final trial briefing, the Court heard, on April 9, 2015, final arguments on the Phase 1 issues. On September 1, 2015, the Court ruled against the JDG on the Phase 1 affirmative defenses. The JDG received permission to file an interlocutory appeal, which was filed by writ petition on October 14, 2015. On January 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied the JDG’s writ petition thereby denying the interlocutory appeal so that the case stays with the trial court. On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication arguing that based upon facts that had been stipulated by the JDG, the Plaintiff had proven its prima facie case and all that remains is a determination of whether any affirmative defenses are available to Defendants. On March 16, 2016, the Court reinstated the stay on discovery for all parties except for the four largest defendants. Following a hearing on April 20, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on its prima facie case. Plaintiff filed its motion for summary adjudication of affirmatives defenses on May 16, 2016. At the August 19, 2016 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication (and the JDG’s opposition), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, thus maintaining the ability of the JDG to defend the issues at trial. On October 7, 2016, the Court continued the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction until the trial for Phase 2. In November 2016, the parties pursued mediation, but were not able to resolve the dispute. In December 2016, discovery resumed for all defendants. Depositions of “person most knowledgeable” witnesses for each defendant in the JDG commenced in late December and proceeded through early 2017, followed by new interrogatories served upon the defendants. The Court set a fact and discovery cutoff of May 31, 2017 and an expert discovery cutoff of August 4, 2017. Depositions of expert witnesses were completed by the end of July 2017. On July 6, 2017, the Court held hearings on a number of discovery motions and denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions as to all the defendants. At a final case management conference on August 21, 2017 the Court set August 31, 2017 as the new trial date for Phase 2, though later changed the starting date for trial to September 5, 2017. The Court elected to break up trial for Phase 2 into two segments, the first focused on liability and the second on remedies. After 14 days at trial, both sides rested on the liability segment, and the Court set a date of November 21, 2017 for the hearing for all evidentiary issues related to this liability segment. The Court also set deadlines for evidentiary motions, issues for oral argument, and oppositions to motions. This hearing date was subsequently moved to January 19, 2018. On March 28, 2018, the Court issued a proposed statement of decision in favor of Plaintiff. Following evaluation of the parties' objections to the proposed statement of decision, the Court issued its final statement of decision on May 7, 2018 which was substantively similar to the proposed statement from March 2018. The issuance of a final statement of decision does not itself cause or order any remedy, such as any requirement to use a warning notice. Any such remedy, including any monetary damages or fee awards, would be resolved in Phase 3 of the trial. On June 15, 2018, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced its proposal of a regulation that would establish, for the purposes of Proposition 65, that chemicals present in coffee as a result of roasting or brewing pose no significant risk of cancer. If adopted, the regulation would, among other things, mean that Proposition 65 warnings would generally not be required for coffee. Plaintiff had earlier filed a motion for permanent injunction, prior to OEHHA’s announcement, asking that the Court issue an order requiring defendants to provide cancer warnings for coffee or remove the coffee products from store shelves in California. The JDG petitioned the Court to (1) renew and reconsider the JDG’s First Amendment defense from Phase 1 based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a First Amendment case that was decided in the context of Proposition 65; (2) vacate the July 31, 2018 hearing date and briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s permanent injunction motion; and (3) stay all further proceedings pending the conclusion of the rulemaking process for OEHHA’s proposed regulation. On June 25, 2018, the Court denied the JDG’s motion to vacate the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for permanent injunction and added the motion to stay to the July 31, 2018 docket to be heard. At the July 31st hearing, the Court granted the JDG’s application and agreed to continue the hearing on all motions to September 6, 2018. At the September 6, 2018 hearing, the Court denied the JDG’s First Amendment motion, and denied the motion to stay pending conclusion of OEHHA’s rulemaking process. The Plaintiff agreed to have the permanent injunction motion continued until after the remedies phase of the trial. The Court set the “Phase 3” remedies trial phase to begin on October 15, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the JDG filed a writ petition with the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, to set aside the lower court’s order denying the JDG’s motion to renew or reopen its First Amendment defense to the imposition of a cancer warning for their coffee products, or, alternatively, to set aside its order dated September 6, 2018, denying the JDG’s motion to stay this action pending adoption by the OEHHA of the proposed regulation. On October 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Stay Order. The Temporary Stay Order ordered the Phase 3 remedies trial be stayed until further notice and did not address the JDG’s First Amendment defense petition. The Court of Appeals also required the JDG to provide a written status update by January 15, 2019. Following the issuance of the Court of Appeal’s Temporary Stay Order, on October 15, 2018, the trial court issued a Notice of Court’s Ruling staying any further proceedings, including both remedies and liability, pending a ruling by the Court of Appeals. At a December 3, 2018 status conference, the Court continued its stay on the Phase 3 remedies trial. The Court set another status conference for February 4, 2019 and asked that the JDG submit a joint status report on appellate activities by January 28, 2019. The JDG provided their written status update to the Court of Appeals timely on January 15, 2019, which update reported that OEHHA had submitted the final regulation (unchanged from its proposed rulemaking) to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review. OAL had 30 working days (until February 19, 2019) to approve, reject, or submit questions to OEHHA concerning the regulation. On January 31, 2019, the Court of Appeals continued its Temporary Stay Order and required the JDG to provide a written update by April 15, 2019. Prior to February 19, 2019, OAL raised questions to OEHHA concerning the regulation, specifically OEHHA’s authority to make a determination for chemicals in coffee whether or not presently listed under Prop 65. As a result, OEHHA decided to take back the regulation from OAL to address those issues. On March 15, 2019, OEHHA announced that it was amending the language of the regulation to make clear that the “no significant risk” determination applies only to chemicals in coffee that are currently listed under Prop 65. OEHHA extended the public comment period until April 2, 2019. Once OEHHA has reviewed and developed responses to comments and created an updated final statement of reasons, it will resubmit the regulation to OAL. OAL will then have another 30 days to review the regulation. If OAL approves the regulation in time, it could be submitted for publication in the July 1, 2019 update to the California Code of Regulations, at which point it is expected that it would become effective. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter. The Company is a party to various other pending legal and administrative proceedings. It is management’s opinion that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration