Commitments and Contingencies | 15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation, Investigations, and Audits - On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al. , Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20, 2016 through and including November 2, 2016. It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al. , Case No. 2016-CH-16359, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint, purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste. On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, et al. , Case No. 17-cv-01014, in the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint is also purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste. On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al. , Case No. 1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Reed, et al. , Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. Like Wells , Lavin , and Bartelt , this complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts claims for contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail). Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations concerning events in 2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks contribution from the individual defendants for losses incurred by the company in these litigations. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously, but note that, as described below, an agreement in principle has been reached to resolve the federal securities class action. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii) plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties. On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in light of the Public Employees' Court's denial of the motion to dismiss in February 2018. The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further deferring the matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018, respectively. On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to consolidate the Bartelt matter with Lavin , so that it would be subject to the Lavin deferral order. This motion was granted on June 27, 2019, and Bartelt is now consolidated with Lavin and deferred. The parties filed a status report on April 13, 2021. Similarly, Ann Arbor was consolidated with Wells on August 13, 2019, and is now deferred. On February 8, 2021, the plaintiffs in Wells moved to modify the deferral order to lift the stay, and defendants thereafter opposed the motion. On April 15, 2021, the court denied the motion and set a status hearing for July 15, 2021. On July 12, 2021, the parties entered a joint status report, informing the court that the securities class action settlement was not yet approved. The July 15 status hearing was stricken, and another status hearing is set for October 18, 2021. Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al. , in accordance with the Court's order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi as the lead plaintiff. On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report with the Court, which set forth a proposed discovery and briefing schedule for the Court's consideration. On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class, and defendants filed their response in opposition to the motion to certify the class on October 8, 2018. On November 12, 2018, the parties filed an agreed motion to stay proceedings to allow them to explore mediation. The motion was granted on November 19. The parties thereafter engaged in mediation but failed to resolve the dispute. On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by filing an agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on April 9. Under that schedule, lead plaintiff filed its reply class certification brief on May 17, 2019. On February 26, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for class certification. Defendants then filed a petition for permissive appeal of the class certification order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 11, 2020. After ordering lead plaintiff to file a response, the court denied the petition on May 4, 2020. On December 16, 2019, the parties agreed to extend the case schedule 90 days. This agreed motion was granted on December 25, 2019. At a status conference on March 10, 2020, the parties informed the court that they intended to engage in a second mediation and the court extended then-upcoming deadlines under the case schedule, pending a further status report from the parties regarding the extent of the stay needed to facilitate mediation. The court subsequently issued multiple general orders as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, which together postponed all case deadlines for a total of 77 days. On June 9, 2020, the parties filed a joint status report informing the court that mediation had been scheduled for July 9, 2020. The next day, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of mediation. Any in-person mediation was thereafter postponed due to ongoing COVID-19 concerns, and the parties proceeded to mediate remotely. On April 19, 2021, the parties advised the Court that they have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, subject to various conditions, definitive documentation, and Court approval. On July 14, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. The agreement includes a cash payment of $27.0 million (funded by D&O insurance) in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of the class claims and full releases. As a result of these developments, the Company has an accrual for a $27.0 million liability and a corresponding insurance receivable within Accrued expenses and Prepaid expenses and other current assets, respectively, in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2021. On July 27, 2021, the court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for November 16, 2021. The Company is party to matters challenging its wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc ., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at three former Company manufacturing facilities in California. The Company has notified the Court that it has reached a preliminary settlement understanding with the Negrete plaintiffs that would resolve all associated matters for a payment by the Company of $9.0 million. The preliminary understanding reached with the Negrete plaintiffs involves procedural requirements and Court approval which may continue through 2021. As a result of these developments, the Company has an accrual for a $9.0 million liability within Accrued expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2021. In addition, the Company is party in the ordinary course of business to certain claims, litigation, audits, and investigations. The Company will record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes it has established adequate accruals for liabilities that are probable and reasonably estimable that may be incurred in connection with any such currently pending or threatened matter, none of which are significant. In the Company's opinion, the settlement of any such currently pending or threatened matter is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In February 2014, TreeHouse, along with its 100% owned subsidiaries, Bay Valley Foods, LLC and Sturm Foods, Inc., filed suit against Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Keurig Green Mountain ("KGM"), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") captioned TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al . TreeHouse asserted claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust laws and unfair competition statutes, contending that KGM had monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods. TreeHouse is seeking monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. KGM is denying the allegations made by TreeHouse in the litigation. As such, TreeHouse has not recorded any amount in its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of June 30, 2021. |