Commitments and Contingencies | 10. Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations The Company had outstanding contracts and purchase orders of $ 148.5 million related to capital projects and services including purchases of compressed natural gas for its trucking fleet at October 1, 2022. Amounts due under these contracts were not included on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of October 1, 2022. Guarantees The Company from time to time enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require it to indemnify various parties against claims from third parties. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) certain real estate leases under which subsidiaries of the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities and other claims arising from their use of the applicable premises; (ii) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors, and employees under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationship; and (iii) customer agreements under which the Company may be required to indemnify customers for certain claims brought against them with respect to the supplied products. Generally, a maximum obligation under these contracts is not explicitly stated. Because the obligated amounts associated with these types of agreements are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been required to make payments under these obligations and, therefore, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. Litigation The Company is engaged in various legal proceedings that have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. The likelihood of loss arising from these legal proceedings, based on definitions within contingency accounting literature, ranges from remote to reasonably possible to probable. When losses are probable and reasonably estimable, they have been accrued. Based on estimates of the range of potential losses associated with these matters, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect upon the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. However, the final results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and, if the Company failed to prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses were to exceed the Company’s current estimates of the range of potential losses, the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations could be materially adversely affected in future periods. JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. In October 2019, a Multidistrict Litigation action (“MDL”) was initiated in order to centralize litigation against JUUL Labs, Inc. (“JUUL”) and other parties in connection with JUUL’s e-cigarettes and related devices and components in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 11, 2020, counsel for plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee filed a Master Complaint in the MDL ("master Complaint") naming, among several other entities and individuals including JUUL, Altria Group, Inc., Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution Company, Altria Enterprises LLC, certain members of management and/or individual investors in JUUL, various e-liquid manufacturers, and various retailers, including the Company’s subsidiaries Eby-Brown and Core-Mark, as defendants. The Master Complaint also named additional distributors of JUUL products (collectively with Eby-Brown and Core-Mark, the “Distributor Defendants”). The Master Complaint contains various state law claims and alleges that the Distributor Defendants: (i) failed to disclose JUUL’s nicotine contents or the risks associated; (ii) pushed a product designed for a youth market; (iii) engaged with JUUL in planning and marketing its product in a manner designed to maximize the flow of JUUL products; (iv) met with JUUL management in San Francisco, California to further these business dealings; and (v) received incentives and business development funds for marketing and efficient sales. Individual plaintiffs may also file separate and abbreviated Short Form Complaints (“SFC”) that incorporate the allegations in the Master Complaint. JUUL, and Eby-Brown are parties to a Domestic Wholesale Distribution Agreement dated March 10, 2020 (the "Distribution Agreement"), and JUUL has agreed to defend and indemnify Eby-Brown under the terms of that agreement and is paying Eby-Brown’s outside counsel fees directly. In addition, Core-Mark and JUUL have entered into a Defense and Indemnity Agreement dated March 8, 2021 (the "Defense Agreement") pursuant to which JUUL has agreed to defend and indemnify Core-Mark, and JUUL is paying Core-Mark’s outside counsel fees directly. On May 29, 2020, JUUL filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the alleged state law claims are preempted by federal law and a motion to stay/dismiss the litigation based on the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) primary jurisdiction to regulate e-cigarette and related vaping products and pending FDA review of JUUL’s Pre-Market Tobacco Application (“PMTA”). On June 29, 2020, Eby-Brown and Core-Mark, along with the other Distributor Defendants, filed similar motions incorporating JUUL’s arguments. The court denied these motions on October 23, 2020. The court has also selected the first round of bellwether cases. Bellwether trials are test cases generally intended to try a contested issue common to several plaintiffs in mass tort litigation. The results of these proceedings are used to shape the litigation process for the remaining cases and to aid the parties in assessing potential settlement values of the remaining claims. Here, the court authorized a pool of 24 bellwether plaintiffs, with plaintiffs selecting six cases, the combined defendants selecting six cases, and the court selecting 12 cases at random. The court and the parties have completed the initial bellwether selection process, and the first of these four bellwether trials was set for November 2022, after having been postponed. The remaining three trials initially set for 2022 have been delayed until 2023. Eby-Brown and Core-Mark have been dismissed from each of the bellwether cases and will not be parties or participants to those trials. The Distributor Defendants and the retailers do, however, remain named defendants in various SFCs that were not selected as bellwether trial plaintiffs. The litigation of those claims is not scheduled to occur until after the bellwether trials conclude. The second round of bellwether cases are currently scheduled to begin in September 2023. In the meantime, discovery related to the claims in the Master Complaint continues as to the Distributor Defendants. On September 3, 2020, the Cherokee Nation filed a parallel lawsuit in Oklahoma state court against several entities, including JUUL, e-liquid manufacturers, various retailers, and various distributors, including Eby-Brown and Core-Mark, alleging similar claims to the claims at issue in the MDL (the “Oklahoma Litigation”). The defendants in the Oklahoma Litigation attempted to transfer the case into the MDL, but a federal court in Oklahoma remanded the case to Oklahoma state court before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation effectuated the transfer of the MDL, which means the Oklahoma Litigation is no longer eligible for transfer to the MDL. Since then, parties agreed to stay the Oklahoma Litigation and proceed to mediation after the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that public nuisance claims cannot be brought in consumer products cases. JUUL attempted mediation with the Cherokee Nation in March 2022, which did not result in resolution. The Cherokee Nation has yet to file a motion to lift the stay. If the stay is lifted, discovery will recommence, and the parties will litigate the various discovery disputes that were outstanding prior to the stay. On September 10, 2021, Michael Lumpkins filed a parallel lawsuit in Illinois state court against several entities, including JUUL, e-liquid manufacturers, various retailers, and various distributors, including Eby-Brown and Core-Mark, alleging similar claims to the claims at issue in the MDL (the “Illinois Litigation”). Because there is no federal jurisdiction for this case, it will proceed in Illinois state court. Plaintiff alleges as damages that his use of JUUL products caused a brain injury that was later exacerbated by medical negligence. The court has entered a case management schedule, with a trial tentatively scheduled to take place in the first calendar quarter of 2024. Eby-Brown has filed a substantive motion to dismiss. The parties are engaged in discovery. The defense and indemnity of Eby-Brown and Core-Mark for the Illinois Litigation is covered by the Distribution Agreement and the Defense Agreement. On June 23, 2022, the FDA announced it had issued marketing denial orders (“MDOs”) to JUUL for all of its products currently marketed and sold in the U.S. According to the FDA, the MDOs banned the distribution and sale of all JUUL products domestically. That same day, JUUL filed a petition for review of the MDOs with the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On June 24, 2022, the court of appeals stayed the MDOs and issued a briefing schedule in the case. Thereafter, JUUL informed the FDA that per applicable regulations it would submit a request for supervisory review of the MDOs to the FDA. In response, the FDA notified JUUL that upon further review of the briefing JUUL made to the court of appeals, the FDA determined there are scientific issues unique to JUUL’s PMTA that warrant additional review. Accordingly, the FDA entered an administrative stay of the MDO. If the FDA ultimately decides to maintain or re-issue the MDOs, the administrative stay will remain in place for an additional thirty days to provide JUUL the opportunity to seek further judicial relief. JUUL and the FDA filed a joint motion with the court of appeals to hold the petition for review in abeyance on July 6, 2022, which the court of appeals granted on July 7, 2022. At this time, the Company is unable to predict whether the FDA will approve JUUL’s PMTA or re-issue the MDOs, nor is the Company able to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in the event of an adverse finding against it in the MDL, the Oklahoma Litigation, the Illinois Litigation, or any subsequent litigation which may occur related to the individual SFCs. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself. Tax Liabilities The Company is subject to customary audits by authorities in the jurisdictions where it conducts business in the United States and Canada, which may result in assessments of additional taxes. |