COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company had purchase commitments aggregating approximately $34.9 million at September 30, 2013, which represented commitments made by the Company and its subsidiaries to various suppliers of raw materials for the production of its products. These obligations vary in terms, but are generally satisfied within one year. The Company had contractual obligations aggregating approximately $74.9 million at September 30, 2013, which related primarily to sponsorships and other marketing activities. The Company had operating lease commitments aggregating approximately $16.7 million at September 30, 2013, which related primarily to warehouse and office space. On August 12, 2013, the Company moved into its new corporate headquarters located in Corona, CA, which was previously acquired by the Company in October 2012. Value Added Tax (“VAT”) – The Company is seeking guidance from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”), the VAT taxing authority in the United Kingdom, to ascertain if the Company should have charged VAT to certain customers in the United Kingdom on a portion of the Company’s sales to those customers beginning in 2010. If HMRC determines that the Company should have charged VAT on such sales, the VAT would represent only a pass-through tax to our customers in the United Kingdom. Therefore, any related adjustment should represent an accounts receivable and accounts payable gross-up on the balance sheet and have no impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company estimates the maximum amount of the potential VAT pass-through tax to be $47.1 million at September 30, 2013 ($33.2 million at December 31, 2012). If HMRC determines that the Company should have charged VAT on such sales, it is possible that a tax penalty may be assessed by HMRC. However, the Company believes any such penalty would not have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Litigation – In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against the Company and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as defendants (the “Wellman Action”). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy® products in Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of the energy drink products. The plaintiff’s claims against the defendants are for negligence, unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario). The plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class in the amount of CDN$20 million, together with punitive damages of CDN$5 million, plus legal costs and interest. The plaintiff’s certification motion materials have not yet been filed. The Company believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company will not file an answer to the complaint until after the determination of the certification motion. The Company believes that the plaintiff’s complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. On October 17, 2012, Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, styled Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier v. Monster Beverage Corporation, against the Company claiming that the death of their 14 year old daughter (Anais Fournier) was caused by her consumption of two 24-ounce Monster Energy® drinks over the course of two days in December 2011. The plaintiffs allege strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties and wrongful death. The plaintiffs claim general damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages. The Company filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint on November 19, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on June 7, 2013. The court set a mediation completion date of November 26, 2013 and indicated that if the parties needed additional time to complete the mediation, the mediation could be scheduled for a later date. Discovery has commenced but no trial date has been set. The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. The Company also believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. The Company has also been named as a defendant in other complaints containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier lawsuit, each of which the Company believes is also without merit and would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in the event any damages were awarded. Securities Litigation – On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the “Consolidated Class Action Complaint”). The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the “Class Period”). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“AB”) and its sales of “Allied” energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company’s financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages. The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the “Amended Class Action Complaint”). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in “channel stuffing” during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company’s reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant. On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff’s allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012. At a hearing on plaintiff’s class certification motion held on June 20, 2013, the District Court issued a tentative ruling indicating that it was inclined to deny the motion, without prejudice. The District Court has not yet, however, issued a final ruling and the motion for class certification remains sub judice. Fact discovery in the action has been stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion. The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be estimated. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. State Attorney General Inquiry – In July 2012, the Company received a subpoena from a state attorney general in connection with an investigation concerning the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks. As the investigation is in an early stage, it is unknown what, if any, action the state attorney general may take against the Company, the relief which may be sought in the event of any such proceeding or whether such proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. San Francisco City Attorney Litigation. On October 31, 2012, the Company received a written request for information from the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco concerning the Company’s advertising and marketing of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks and specifically concerning the safety of its products for consumption by adolescents. In a letter dated March 29, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney threatened to bring suit against the Company if it did not agree to take the following five steps immediately: (i) “Reformulate its product to lower the caffeine content to safe levels”; (ii) “Provide adequate warning labels”; (iii) “Cease promoting over-consumption in marketing”; (iv) “Cease use of alcohol and drug references in marketing”; and (v) “Cease targeting minors.” On April 29, 2013, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Monster Energy Company, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the San Francisco City Attorney in United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”), styled Monster Beverage Corp., et al. v. Dennis Herrera. The Company seeks a declaration from the Central District Court that the San Francisco City Attorney’s investigation and demands are impermissible and preempted, subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, are unconstitutional in that they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibitions against compelled speech, content-based speech and commercial speech, are impermissibly void-for-vagueness, and/or violate the Commerce Clause. On June 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint, arguing in part that the complaint should be dismissed in light of the San Francisco Action (described below) filed on May 6, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the Central District Court granted in part and denied in part the City Attorney’s motion. On October 17, 2013 (after the San Francisco Action described below was remanded to San Francisco Superior Court), the City Attorney filed a renewed motion to dismiss. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for December 9, 2013. On May 6, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., styled People Of The State Of California ex rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Monster Beverage Corporation, San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco Action”). The City Attorney alleges that the Company (1) mislabeled its products as a dietary supplement, in violation of California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, California Health & Safety Code sections 109875 et. seq.; (2) is selling an “adulterated” product because caffeine is not generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) due to the alleged lack of scientific consensus concerning the safety of the levels of caffeine in the Company’s products; and (3) is engaged in unfair and misleading business practices because its marketing (a) does not disclose the health risks that energy drinks pose for children and teens; (b) fails to warn against and promotes unsafe consumption; (c) implicitly promotes mixing of energy drinks with alcohol or drugs; and (d) is deceptive because it includes unsubstantiated claims about the purported special benefits of its “killer” ingredients and “energy blend.” The City Attorney seeks a declaration that the Company has engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; an injunction from performing or proposing to perform any acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; restitution; and civil penalties. On June 3, 2013, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”). On July 3, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action to the Central District Court. On that same day, the City Attorney filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On September 18, 2013, the Northern District Court granted the City Attorney’s motion to remand. Because of the remand, the Northern District Court did not reach the merits of the Company’s motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action. Following remand of the San Francisco Action, the Superior Court designated the case as complex and set an initial case management conference for December 13, 2013. The Company’s initial response to the complaint is due 30 days after the case management conference. The Company denies that it has violated the Unfair Competition Law or any other law and believes that the City Attorney’s claims and demands are preempted and unconstitutional, as alleged in the action the Company filed in the Central District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss can be expressed. In addition to the above matters, the Company has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action, each of which contains certain allegations similar to those presented in the Wellman Action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy® brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy® brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company had purchase commitments aggregating approximately $34.9 million at September 30, 2013, which represented commitments made by the Company and its subsidiaries to various suppliers of raw materials for the production of its products. These obligations vary in terms, but are generally satisfied within one year.

The Company had contractual obligations aggregating approximately $74.9 million at September 30, 2013, which related primarily to sponsorships and other marketing activities.

The Company had operating lease commitments aggregating approximately $16.7 million at September 30, 2013, which related primarily to warehouse and office space.

On August 12, 2013, the Company moved into its new corporate headquarters located in Corona, CA, which was previously acquired by the Company in October 2012.

Value Added Tax (“VAT”) – The Company is seeking guidance from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”), the VAT taxing authority in the United Kingdom, to ascertain if the Company should have charged VAT to certain customers in the United Kingdom on a portion of the Company’s sales to those customers beginning in 2010. If HMRC determines that the Company should have charged VAT on such sales, the VAT would represent only a pass-through tax to our customers in the United Kingdom. Therefore, any related adjustment should represent an accounts receivable and accounts payable gross-up on the balance sheet and have no impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company estimates the maximum amount of the potential VAT pass-through tax to be $47.1 million at September 30, 2013 ($33.2 million at December 31, 2012). If HMRC determines that the Company should have charged VAT on such sales, it is possible that a tax penalty may be assessed by HMRC. However, the Company believes any such penalty would not have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Litigation – In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against the Company and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as defendants (the “Wellman Action”). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy® products in Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of the energy drink products. The plaintiff’s claims against the defendants are for negligence, unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario). The plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class in the amount of CDN$20 million, together with punitive damages of CDN$5 million, plus legal costs and interest. The plaintiff’s certification motion materials have not yet been filed. The Company believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company will not file an answer to the complaint until after the determination of the certification motion. The Company believes that the plaintiff’s complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense.

On October 17, 2012, Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, styled Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier v. Monster Beverage Corporation, against the Company claiming that the death of their 14 year old daughter (Anais Fournier) was caused by her consumption of two 24-ounce Monster Energy® drinks over the course of two days in December 2011. The plaintiffs allege strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties and wrongful death. The plaintiffs claim general damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages. The Company filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint on November 19, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on June 7, 2013. The court set a mediation completion date of November 26, 2013 and indicated that if the parties needed additional time to complete the mediation, the mediation could be scheduled for a later date. Discovery has commenced but no trial date has been set. The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. The Company also believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in other complaints containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier lawsuit, each of which the Company believes is also without merit and would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in the event any damages were awarded.

Securities Litigation – On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the “Consolidated Class Action Complaint”).

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the “Class Period”). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“AB”) and its sales of “Allied” energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company’s financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the “Amended Class Action Complaint”). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in “channel stuffing” during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company’s reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.

On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff’s allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012. At a hearing on plaintiff’s class certification motion held on June 20, 2013, the District Court issued a tentative ruling indicating that it was inclined to deny the motion, without prejudice. The District Court has not yet, however, issued a final ruling and the motion for class certification remains sub judice. Fact discovery in the action has been stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion.

The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be estimated. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

State Attorney General Inquiry – In July 2012, the Company received a subpoena from a state attorney general in connection with an investigation concerning the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks. As the investigation is in an early stage, it is unknown what, if any, action the state attorney general may take against the Company, the relief which may be sought in the event of any such proceeding or whether such proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

San Francisco City Attorney Litigation. On October 31, 2012, the Company received a written request for information from the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco concerning the Company’s advertising and marketing of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks and specifically concerning the safety of its products for consumption by adolescents. In a letter dated March 29, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney threatened to bring suit against the Company if it did not agree to take the following five steps immediately: (i) “Reformulate its product to lower the caffeine content to safe levels”; (ii) “Provide adequate warning labels”; (iii) “Cease promoting over-consumption in marketing”; (iv) “Cease use of alcohol and drug references in marketing”; and (v) “Cease targeting minors.”

On April 29, 2013, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Monster Energy Company, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the San Francisco City Attorney in United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”), styled Monster Beverage Corp., et al. v. Dennis Herrera. The Company seeks a declaration from the Central District Court that the San Francisco City Attorney’s investigation and demands are impermissible and preempted, subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, are unconstitutional in that they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibitions against compelled speech, content-based speech and commercial speech, are impermissibly void-for-vagueness, and/or violate the Commerce Clause. On June 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint, arguing in part that the complaint should be dismissed in light of the San Francisco Action (described below) filed on May 6, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the Central District Court granted in part and denied in part the City Attorney’s motion.

On October 17, 2013 (after the San Francisco Action described below was remanded to San Francisco Superior Court), the City Attorney filed a renewed motion to dismiss. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for December 9, 2013.

On May 6, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., styled People Of The State Of California ex rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Monster Beverage Corporation, San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco Action”). The City Attorney alleges that the Company (1) mislabeled its products as a dietary supplement, in violation of California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, California Health & Safety Code sections 109875 et. seq.; (2) is selling an “adulterated” product because caffeine is not generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) due to the alleged lack of scientific consensus concerning the safety of the levels of caffeine in the Company’s products; and (3) is engaged in unfair and misleading business practices because its marketing (a) does not disclose the health risks that energy drinks pose for children and teens; (b) fails to warn against and promotes unsafe consumption; (c) implicitly promotes mixing of energy drinks with alcohol or drugs; and (d) is deceptive because it includes unsubstantiated claims about the purported special benefits of its “killer” ingredients and “energy blend.” The City Attorney seeks a declaration that the Company has engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; an injunction from performing or proposing to perform any acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; restitution; and civil penalties. On June 3, 2013, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”). On July 3, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action to the Central District Court. On that same day, the City Attorney filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On September 18, 2013, the Northern District Court granted the City Attorney’s motion to remand. Because of the remand, the Northern District Court did not reach the merits of the Company’s motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action.

Following remand of the San Francisco Action, the Superior Court designated the case as complex and set an initial case management conference for December 13, 2013. The Company’s initial response to the complaint is due 30 days after the case management conference.

The Company denies that it has violated the Unfair Competition Law or any other law and believes that the City Attorney’s claims and demands are preempted and unconstitutional, as alleged in the action the Company filed in the Central District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss can be expressed.

In addition to the above matters, the Company has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action, each of which contains certain allegations similar to those presented in the Wellman Action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy® brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy® brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.