What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2023-03-17 compared with 2023-03-17 · 31 added, 37 removed, 1 unchanged (99% of the section changed)

Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois (the “Court”) on or about December 21, 2020.

The plaintiffs, Eileen Brodsky and Rhonda Diamond,

purported to represent a class of individuals who purchased coffee products at Aldi, Inc.

(“Aldi”), a supermarket

chain, generally allege that Aldi sold private label coffee products manufactured by us and by Pan American Coffee Co., LLC (“Pan American”), which

falsely described the number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of product purchased.

Aldi and Pan American were also named

as defendants in the action.

The complaint asserted a variety of claims under New York and California consumer protection laws, and

sought unspecified monetary damages, including disgorgement and restitution, as well as other forms of relief including class

certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and interest.

On September 28, 2021, the Court entered an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice (the “Dismissal

In the Dismissal Order, the Court stated that no reasonable coffee drinker would be deceived by the Company’s packaging.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the 7 th Circuit Court of Appeals (the

After the Appeal was filed, the Company and the plaintiffs’ settled the matter during mediation in late January

2022 and the Appeal was dismissed.

significant customer of the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District

Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Massachusetts District Court”) on or about February 2, 2021, concerning

the labeling on private label coffee productions we sold to the customer.

The plaintiff, David Cohen, purporting to represent a

class of individuals who purchased coffee products from our customer, generally allege that the customer sold private label coffee

products manufactured by the Company which falsely described the number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of product

The Company is not named as a defendant in the action, but has agreed to indemnify the customer for the costs and expenses

incurred in defending the lawsuit and for any liability the customer may suffer as a result.

The complaint asserts a variety of

claims under Massachusetts consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary damages as well as other forms of relief

including class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and interest.

The Company believes the allegations in

the complaint are wholly without merit and that the claims asserted are legally deficient, and intends to vigorously support the

customer in defending the action.

On February 28, 2022,the Company and the plaintiff, in his individual capacity and not on behalf of a presumptive class, resolved the matter in principle

and have reported the agreement in principle to the Massachusetts District Court.

After the end of the period, the parties finalized the

details of a settlement agreement.

The final settlement amount was immaterial to the Company’s operations and results

of operations.

were named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Illinois on or about December 21, 2020.

The plaintiffs, Eileen Brodsky and Rhonda Diamond, purporting to represent a class

of individuals who purchased coffee products at one of our supermarket customers, generally allege that such

client sold private label coffee products manufactured by us and one of our partners, which falsely described the number

of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of product purchased.

These parties are also named as defendants in

The complaint asserts a variety of claims under New York and California consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified

monetary damages, including disgorgement and restitution, as well as other forms of relief including class certification, declaratory

and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and interest.

We believe the allegations in the complaint are wholly without merit

and that the claims asserted are legally deficient, and the company intends to vigorously defend the action.

As of the filing

of this Form 10-K, we have not been served with the complaint.

Therefore, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this

significant customer of ours was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court

for the District of Massachusetts on or about February 2, 2021, concerning the labeling on private label coffee productions we

sold to the customer.

The plaintiff, David Cohen, purporting to represent a class of individuals who purchased coffee products

from our customer, generally allege that the customer sold private label coffee products manufactured by us which falsely described

the number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of product purchased.

We are not named as a defendant in the action,

but we have agreed to indemnify the customer for the costs and expenses incurred in defending the lawsuit and for any liability

the customer may suffer as a result.

The complaint asserts a variety of claims under Massachusetts consumer protection laws, and

seeks unspecified monetary damages as well as other forms of relief including class certification, declaratory and injunctive

relief, attorneys’ fees, and interest.

We believe the allegations in the complaint are wholly without merit and that the

claims asserted are legally deficient, and we intend to vigorously support the customer in defending the action.

As of the filing

of this Form 10-K, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K/A

Item 3. Legal Proceedings