5.	Commitments and Contingencies

Florida Concentrates Suit

On October 16, 2012, Primo was served with the Summons and Complaint in a suit filed in the Florida state courts on September 26, 2012. Plaintiffs in the suit are Florida Concentrates International, LLC (a Florida limited liability company), Florida Sparkling DS, LLC (a Florida limited liability company), and Didier Hardy (a Florida resident and apparently the principal of the LLC plaintiffs). Also named as defendants are Susan and Scott Ballantyne (alleged to be Florida residents) and SDS-IC. The suit was filed in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial District (Collier County, Florida). Plaintiffs' allegations include breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and certain additional claims and plaintiffs seek monetary damages. We filed a motion to dismiss all claims, which was granted in part and denied in part on June 21, 2013. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 10, 2013 to which we responded on August 28, 2013. We do not believe that the suit has any merit whatsoever, and plan to vigorously contest and defend against it. No accrual has been made for this claim at March 31, 2015, as we do not currently believe that any losses are probable.

Omnifrio Single-Serve Beverage Business

Deferred purchase price payments totaling $1,976 and $1,987 were included within liabilities of disposal group, net of current portion, and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. These payments were related to the April 11, 2011 acquisition of certain intellectual property and other assets from the seller, Omnifrio Beverage Company LLC (“Omnifrio”). On July 19, 2013, we entered into a conditional settlement and release agreement with Omnifrio and certain other parties pursuant to which we agreed to, among other things, use commercially reasonable efforts to sell the assets purchased from Omnifrio in April 2011 and to provide Omnifrio certain amounts of the proceeds of any such sale in exchange for Omnifrio agreeing to release us from any claims related to the milestone payments included in our original purchase agreement with Omnifrio and, upon the sale of such assets, to release us from any claims related to the deferred purchase price payments included in such agreement. On July 19, 2014, the conditional settlement and release agreement was amended to extend its term through October 17, 2014. On October 18, 2014, the conditional settlement and release agreement was further amended to extend its term through April 17, 2015. On April 18, 2015, the conditional settlement and release agreement was further amended to extend its term through July 16, 2015.

Prism Arbitration

On August 5, 2014, Primo Distribution, LLC (also known as Prism Distribution) initiated an arbitration proceeding against us, claiming less than $1,000 in damages for alleged breach of contract. The arbitration was filed with the American Arbitration Association, and was amended on December 19, 2014 to include additional claims for conversion, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Damages claimed remain less than $1,000. We do not believe that the claim has any merit and plan to vigorously contest and defend against it. No accrual has been made for this claim at March 31, 2015, as we do not currently believe that any losses are probable.

Texas Regional Operator Litigation/Arbitration

On August 8, 2014, a lawsuit was commenced against us by our regional operators in the State of Texas, Artesia Springs, LLC, HOD Enterprises, L.P., and BBB Water, Inc. (the “ROs”). DS Services is also named as a defendant in the suit. The suit was filed in the 166th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, and was served upon us on August 25, 2014. We removed the suit to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on September 5, 2014. The claims alleged against us in the suit are breach of contract, conspiracy and fraud, and the ROs seek unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. We responded to the complaint on September 24, 2014 by filing a motion to dismiss, to compel alternative dispute resolution, and to stay proceedings. On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge to whom the case was assigned issued a decision recommending dismissal of the suit and enforcement of the alternative dispute resolution provisions of the ROs’ contracts. On January 31, 2015, the District Judge entered an Order endorsing the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision and dismissed the case without prejudice. The District Judge indicated that to pursue their claims, the plaintiffs would have to proceed with alternative dispute resolution in North Carolina as provided in their contracts. On April 10, 2015, the ROs initiated an arbitration proceeding with the American Arbitration Association. The claims asserted are essentially the same as the ones made in their lawsuit described above. We do not believe that the claim has any merit and plan to vigorously contest and defend against it. No accrual has been made for this claim at March 31, 2015 as we do not currently believe that any loss which may result can be reasonably estimated. An estimate of the possible loss or range of losses cannot be made.

Sales Tax

We routinely purchase equipment for use in operations from various vendors. These purchases are subject to sales tax depending on the equipment type and local sales tax regulations; however, we believe certain vendors have not assessed the appropriate sales tax. For purchases that are subject to sales tax in which we believe the vendor did not assess the appropriate amount, we accrue an estimate of the sales tax liability we ultimately expect to pay.

Other Contingencies

From time to time, we are involved in various claims and legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. Management believes that the outcome of such legal actions will not have a significant adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.