Snapple 2010 Annual Report Download - page 123

DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
20. Commitments and Contingencies
Lease Commitments
The Company has leases for certain facilities and equipment which expire at various dates through 2020. Operating lease
expense was $82 million, $79 million, and $59 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Future minimum lease payments under capital and operating leases with initial or remaining noncancellable lease terms in
excess of one year as of December 31, 2010 are as follows (in millions):
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Thereafter
Total minimum lease payments
Less imputed interest at rates ranging from 9.89% to 12.63%
Present value of minimum lease payments
Operating Leases
$71
58
51
41
33
94
$ 348
Capital Leases
$4
5
5
2
—
—
16
(3)
$13
Of the $13 million in capital lease obligations above, $10 million is included in long-term debt payable to third parties and
$3 million is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2010.
Legal Matters
The Company is occasionally subject to litigation or other legal proceedings. Set forth below is a description of the
Company’s significant pending legal matters. Although the estimated range of loss, if any, for the pending legal matters
described below cannot be estimated at this time, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these, or any other,
pending legal matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the business or financial condition of
the Company although such matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in
a particular period.
Snapple Litigation — Labeling Claims
Snapple Beverage Corp. has been sued in various jurisdictions generally alleging that Snapple’s labeling of certain of its
drinks is misleading and/or deceptive. These cases have been filed as class actions and, generally, seek unspecified damages on
behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies paid
for product and treble damages. The cases and their status are as follows:
• In 2007, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Stacy Holk in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey.
This case has been dismissed voluntarily by plaintiff after the decision in the New York Weiner case, as described
below.
• In 2007, the attorneys in the Holk case also filed an action in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York on behalf of plaintiffs, Evan Weiner and Timothy McCausland. Class certification of this case was denied
and summary judgment for Snapple was granted on the plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiff is unlikely to appeal.
• In 2009, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Frances Von Koenig in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of California. A similar suit filed was consolidated with the Von Koenig case. Snapple’s motion to dismiss was granted
as to the plaintiffs' advertising claims. Discovery is proceeding on the plaintiffs' remaining claims.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in each of these cases and will defend itself
vigorously. However, there is no assurance that the outcome of these cases will be favorable to the Company.
103