Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	7.Commitments and Contingencies Contractual Our future contractual obligations consist principally of long-term debt, operating leases, minimum commitments regarding third-party warehouse operations services, forward purchase agreements and remaining minimum royalty payments due to licensors pursuant to brand licensing agreements. In order to mitigate the risks of volatility in commodity markets to which we are exposed, we have entered into forward purchase agreements with certain suppliers based on market prices, forward price projections and expected usage levels. Our purchase commitments for certain ingredients, packaging materials and energy are generally less than 12 months. Legal Proceedings We are periodically a party to various lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, based on discussions with legal counsel, that the resolution of any such lawsuits, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Litigation On April 4, 2016, a purported class action captioned Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund (“Westmoreland”) v. Inventure Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. CV2016-002718, was filed in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. Additional defendants are the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of the secondary securities offering that closed September 14, 2014 (the “September 2014 Offering”). The class action complaint, which was amended a second time on March 27, 2017, alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and focuses on the conditions at the Company’s former frozen food facility in Jefferson, Georgia. Westmoreland seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and the September 2014 Offering underwriters have answered and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 8, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On November 10, 2016, the Center for Environment Health (“CEH”), represented by Howard Hirsch of Lexington Law Group, filed a lawsuit against the Company under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (known as “Proposition 65”) (the “Act”). CEH contends that the Company’s potato-based chip products contain amounts of acrylamide in excess of what is permitted under the Act. A retailer of the Company, Bristol Farms, demanded indemnity in relation to the litigation. The Company has answered the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. On November 14, 2016, Michelle Blair (represented by Matthew Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm LLC and Stuart Cochran of Cochran Law PLLC) filed a putative class action against the Company in St. Louis City Circuit Court. Ms. Blair purports to represent a class of consumers who purchased one of nine Boulder Canyon® brand products listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. Ms. Blair contends that the use of “evaporated cane juice” was misleading because evaporated cane juice is sugar. In the complaint, Ms. Blair advances claims for violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020, et seq. and 15 C.S.R. 60-8.020, et seq., and unjust enrichment. On February 3, 2017, the Company removed the action to the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff dismissed the removed action without prejudice and refiled a substantially similar complaint in the Southern District of Illinois. The new complaint is brought by Ms. Blair and a new plaintiff, Shannah Burton, and asserts a nationwide putative class, as well as a putative class of Illinois and Missouri purchasers. Ms. Burton alleges claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/2, et seq. Both plaintiffs also assert claims for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. On April 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. On March 9, 2017, a verified stockholder derivative complaint was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The case has since been unsealed and is captioned Robert Hutton Derivatively on Behalf of Inventure Foods, Inc. v. Terry McDaniel et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00727. The named defendants include certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors —Terry McDaniel, Steve Weinberger, Timothy A. Cole, Ashton D. Asensio, Macon Bryce Edmonson, Paul J. Lapadat, Harold S. Edwards, David I. Meyers, and Itzhak Reichman. The lawsuit also names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint focuses on the conditions at the Company’s former frozen food facility in Jefferson, Georgia and the Company’s 2015 and 2016 proxy statements. The plaintiff purports to derivatively assert on behalf of the Company claims for alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the plaintiff seeks an unspecified award of actual or compensatory damages in favor of the Company; an order directing the Company to take certain actions concerning its corporate governance and internal procedures, including putting forward certain proposals concerning its corporate governance policies and amendments to the Company’s Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation for a stockholder vote; an award of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief concerning the defendants’ trading activities or their assets; restitution from defendants to Inventure Foods consisting of a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by defendants; costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys, accountant and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, stay the matter pending resolution of the putative class action brought by Westmoreland (identified above) is resolved. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss is set for August 30, 2017. The defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit. On March 27, 2017, a putative securities class action was filed by Glenn Schoenfeld in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:17-cv-00910, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (the “Schoenfeld Lawsuit”). On April 27, 2017, John Robinson filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:17-cv-01258, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (the “Robinson Lawsuit”). On June 23, 2017, the court consolidated the Robinson Lawsuit with the Schoenfeld Lawsuit, and the caption was changed to In re Inventure Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:17-cv-0910. On June 27, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint is due August 26, 2017. The original complaints in the Schoenfeld Lawsuit and Robinson Lawsuit were purportedly filed on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired the Company’s securities between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017, and asserted claims for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and focused on the Company’s internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, its statements of operations for fiscal year 2015, and public statements in press releases and SEC filings between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017. Mr. Schoenfeld sought certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the action, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. Mr. Robinson sought certification as a class action, unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuit.

7.Commitments and Contingencies

Contractual

Our future contractual obligations consist principally of long-term debt, operating leases, minimum commitments regarding third-party warehouse operations services, forward purchase agreements and remaining minimum royalty payments due to licensors pursuant to brand licensing agreements.

In order to mitigate the risks of volatility in commodity markets to which we are exposed, we have entered into forward purchase agreements with certain suppliers based on market prices, forward price projections and expected usage levels. Our purchase commitments for certain ingredients, packaging materials and energy are generally less than 12 months.

Legal Proceedings

We are periodically a party to various lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, based on discussions with legal counsel, that the resolution of any such lawsuits, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Litigation

On April 4, 2016, a purported class action captioned Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund (“Westmoreland”) v. Inventure Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. CV2016-002718, was filed in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. Additional defendants are the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of the secondary securities offering that closed September 14, 2014 (the “September 2014 Offering”). The class action complaint, which was amended a second time on March 27, 2017, alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and focuses on the conditions at the Company’s former frozen food facility in Jefferson, Georgia. Westmoreland seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and the September 2014 Offering underwriters have answered and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 8, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

On November 10, 2016, the Center for Environment Health (“CEH”), represented by Howard Hirsch of Lexington Law Group, filed a lawsuit against the Company under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (known as “Proposition 65”) (the “Act”). CEH contends that the Company’s potato-based chip products contain amounts of acrylamide in excess of what is permitted under the Act. A retailer of the Company, Bristol Farms, demanded indemnity in relation to the litigation. The Company has answered the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On November 14, 2016, Michelle Blair (represented by Matthew Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm LLC and Stuart Cochran of Cochran Law PLLC) filed a putative class action against the Company in St. Louis City Circuit Court. Ms. Blair purports to represent a class of consumers who purchased one of nine Boulder Canyon® brand products listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. Ms. Blair contends that the use of “evaporated cane juice” was misleading because evaporated cane juice is sugar. In the complaint, Ms. Blair advances claims for violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020, et seq. and 15 C.S.R. 60-8.020, et seq., and unjust enrichment. On February 3, 2017, the Company removed the action to the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff dismissed the removed action without prejudice and refiled a substantially similar complaint in the Southern District of Illinois. The new complaint is brought by Ms. Blair and a new plaintiff, Shannah Burton, and asserts a nationwide putative class, as well as a putative class of Illinois and Missouri purchasers. Ms. Burton alleges claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/2, et seq. Both plaintiffs also assert claims for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. On April 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On March 9, 2017, a verified stockholder derivative complaint was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The case has since been unsealed and is captioned Robert Hutton Derivatively on Behalf of Inventure Foods, Inc. v. Terry McDaniel et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00727. The named defendants include certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors —Terry McDaniel, Steve Weinberger, Timothy A. Cole, Ashton D. Asensio, Macon Bryce Edmonson, Paul J. Lapadat, Harold S. Edwards, David I. Meyers, and Itzhak Reichman. The lawsuit also names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint focuses on the conditions at the Company’s former frozen food facility in Jefferson, Georgia and the Company’s 2015 and 2016 proxy statements. The plaintiff purports to derivatively assert on behalf of the Company claims for alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the plaintiff seeks an unspecified award of actual or compensatory damages in favor of the Company; an order directing the Company to take certain actions concerning its corporate governance and internal procedures, including putting forward certain proposals concerning its corporate governance policies and amendments to the Company’s Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation for a stockholder vote; an award of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief concerning the defendants’ trading activities or their assets; restitution from defendants to Inventure Foods consisting of a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by defendants; costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys, accountant and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, stay the matter pending resolution of the putative class action brought by Westmoreland (identified above) is resolved. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss is set for August 30, 2017. The defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, a putative securities class action was filed by Glenn Schoenfeld in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:17-cv-00910, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (the “Schoenfeld Lawsuit”). On April 27, 2017, John Robinson filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:17-cv-01258, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (the “Robinson Lawsuit”). On June 23, 2017, the court consolidated the Robinson Lawsuit with the Schoenfeld Lawsuit, and the caption was changed to In re Inventure Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:17-cv-0910. On June 27, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint is due August 26, 2017. The original complaints in the Schoenfeld Lawsuit and Robinson Lawsuit were purportedly filed on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired the Company’s securities between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017, and asserted claims for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and focused on the Company’s internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, its statements of operations for fiscal year 2015, and public statements in press releases and SEC filings between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017. Mr. Schoenfeld sought certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the action, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. Mr. Robinson sought certification as a class action, unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuit.