What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2023-03-29 compared with 2022-01-31 · 39 added, 31 removed, 1 unchanged (99% of the section changed)

were 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, 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 action.

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.

On September 28, 2021, the Court entered an order granting our motion to dismiss

with prejudice (the “Dismissal Order”).

In the Dismissal Order, the Court stated that no reasonable coffee drinker would

be deceived by our packaging.

We are currently awaiting a ruling on the plantiff’s appeal.

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

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

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.

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 Order”).

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 “Appeal”).

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 purchased.

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.

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.

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

Item 3. Legal Proceedings