Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Leases See Note 3. On January 14, 2021, the Company entered into the Campus Lease with HC Hornet Way, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Landlord”), to house the Company’s Campus Headquarters. Under the terms of the Campus Lease, the Company will lease an aggregate of approximately 282,000 rentable square feet in a portion of a building located in El Segundo, California, to be built out by the Landlord and delivered to the Company in multiple phases. As of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company has recognized a right-of-use asset and lease liability for Phase 1-A and Phase 1-B in its condensed consolidated balance sheet. On September 17, 2024, the Company entered into an amendment to the Campus Lease, which amendment: (i) revised the square footage of the premises, building and project to: (a) increase the Company’s base rent by approximately $851,000 over the initial lease term; (b) adjust the Company’s percentage share of direct expenses; and (c) increase the tenant improvement allowance to reflect a reduction in the scope of landlord’s work; (ii) specify which improvements must be removed by the Company from the premises if the premises are not occupied in their entirety throughout the initial lease term and first extension term; and (iii) address other ministerial matters concerning the Campus Lease. Aggregate payments towards base rent over the initial lease term associated with the remaining phases not yet delivered to the Company will be approximately $79.6 million. Concurrent with the Company’s execution of the Campus Lease, the Company delivered to the Landlord a letter of credit in the amount of $12.5 million as security for the performance of its obligations under the Campus Lease, which amount will decrease to: (i) $6.3 million on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date (as defined in the Campus Lease); (ii) $3.1 million on the eighth (8th) anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date; and (iii) $0 in the event the Company receives certain credit ratings; provided the Company is not then in default of its obligations under the Campus Lease. The letter of credit is secured by a $12.6 million deposit included in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets as “Restricted cash, non-current” as of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The lease on the Company’s Manhattan Beach Project Innovation Center expired on January 31, 2024. Given the Company’s intention to reduce its overall operating expenses and cash expenditures, on February 2, 2024, the Company terminated the agreement to purchase the Enschede Property and the security deposit was returned to the Company, which was subsequently paid to the purchaser of the property to be applied towards the deposit and future lease payments. The Company entered into a lease agreement with the purchaser of the property to lease the approximately 114,000 square foot property for an initial period of five years with an option to renew for an additional five years at an annual rent of approximately €1.0 million. China Investment and Lease Agreement In 2020, the Company and its subsidiary, BYND JX, entered into an investment agreement with the Administrative Committee (the “JX Committee”) of the Jiaxing Economic & Technological Development Zone (the “JXEDZ”) pursuant to which, among other things, BYND JX has agreed to make certain investments in the JXEDZ in two phases of development, and the Company has agreed to guarantee certain repayment obligations of BYND JX under such agreement. In the three months ended March 29, 2025 and March 30, 2024, the Company received $0 and $0.5 million, respectively, in subsidies from the JXEDZ Finance Bureau. During Phase 1, the Company agreed to invest $10.0 million as the registered capital of BYND JX in the JXEDZ through intercompany investment in BYND JX and BYND JX agreed to lease a facility in the JXEDZ for a minimum of two years. In connection with such agreement, BYND JX entered into a factory leasing contract with a JXEDZ company, pursuant to which BYND JX agreed to lease and renovate a facility in the JXEDZ and lease it for a minimum of two years. In the year ended December 31, 2022, the lease was amended to extend the term for an additional five years without rent escalation. In the fourth quarter of 2021, BYND JX leased an approximately 12,000 square foot facility in Shanghai, China, for a period of eight years, which is used as a local research and development facility. In connection with its suspension of operational activities in China, the Company sent the landlord a notice of termination of this lease effective as of May 20, 2025. As of March 29, 2025, the Company had invested $22.0 million as the registered capital of BYND JX and advanced $20.0 million to BYND JX. In the event that the Company and BYND JX determine, in their sole discretion, to proceed with the Phase 2 development in the JXEDZ, BYND JX has agreed in the first stage of Phase 2 to increase its registered capital to $40.0 million and to acquire the land use right to a state-owned land plot in the JXEDZ to conduct development and construction of a new production facility. Following the first stage of Phase 2, the Company and BYND JX may determine, in their sole discretion, to permit BYND JX to obtain a second state-owned land plot in the JXEDZ in order to construct an additional facility thereon. On February 24, 2025, as part of the Company’s Global Operations Review, the Company’s board of directors approved a plan to suspend the Company’s operational activities in China, which are estimated to cease by the end of the second quarter of 2025. The Planet Partnership In 2021, the Company entered into the Planet Partnership, LLC (“TPP”), a joint venture with PepsiCo, Inc., to develop, produce and market innovative snack and beverage products made from plant-based protein. In the three months ended March 29, 2025 and March 30, 2024, the Company recognized its share of the net loss (income) in TPP in the amount of $11,000 and $(7,000), respectively. As of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company had contributed its share of the investment in TPP in the amount of $27.6 million. See Note 12. In 2023, the Company continued the process of renegotiating certain contracts and changing operating activities related to Beyond Meat Jerky and assumed distribution responsibilities for Beyond Meat Jerky in the fourth quarter of 2023. As part of its Global Operations Review, in 2023, the Company made the decision to discontinue the Beyond Meat Jerky product line and discontinued it in 2024. Purchase Commitments On July 1, 2023, the Company and Roquette Frères entered into a second amendment (the “Second Amendment”) to the Company’s existing pea protein supply agreement dated January 10, 2020, as amended by the first amendment dated August 3, 2022 (the “First Amendment”). Pursuant to the Second Amendment, the terms of the agreement and existing purchase commitments set forth in the First Amendment were revised and extended through December 31, 2025. Pursuant to the Second Amendment, the purchase commitment was revised such that the Company had committed to purchase pea protein inventory totaling $17.0 million in 2025, of which $13.6 million remains as of March 29, 2025. On April 6, 2022, the Company entered into a co-manufacturing agreement (“Agreement”) with a co-manufacturer to manufacture various products for the Company. The Agreement included a minimum order quantity commitment per month and an aggregate quantity over a five-year term. On November 21, 2023, the Company terminated the Agreement because the co-manufacturer failed to meet its obligations under the Agreement and recorded $4.4 million in termination-related charges. In March 2024, the co-manufacturer brought an action against the Company in a confidential arbitration proceeding. See Litigation—Arbitration with Former Co-Manufacturer. Litigation In connection with the matters described below, the Company has accrued for loss contingencies where it believes that losses are probable and estimable. No loss contingency is recorded for matters where such losses are either not probable or reasonably estimable (or both). Although it is reasonably possible that actual losses could be in excess of the Company’s accrual, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of its accrual, due to various reasons, including, among others, that: (i) the proceedings are in early stages or no claims have been asserted, (ii) specific damages have not been sought in all of these matters, (iii) damages, if asserted, are considered unsupported and/or exaggerated, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions or settlements, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories presented. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending legal proceedings, and some of the matters discussed below seek or may seek potentially large and/or indeterminate amounts. Any such loss or excess loss could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows or on the Company’s financial condition. In addition to the matters described below, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Based on the facts currently available, the Company does not believe that the disposition of such other matters that are pending or asserted will have a material effect on its financial statements. Aliments BVeggie, Inc. In November 2023, Aliments BVeggie, Inc. (“BVeggie”) filed and served legal proceedings against the Company before the Superior Court of Quebec’s District of Montreal. BVeggie alleges, among other things that: (i) in 2019, the Company and BVeggie entered into a co-manufacturing agreement, by which BVeggie would produce and deliver products for the benefit of the Company, in exchange for a tolling fee to be paid per pound of product produced and delivered to the Company; (ii) the Company would have made false and misleading statements regarding the volume of purchase orders it would provide BVeggie; (iii) BVeggie invested significant sums to adapt its facilities for the intended production; (iv) the Company fell short of its undertakings and promises; and (v) in March 2023, the Company illegally terminated the business relationship. BVeggie intends to claim damages in the total amount of 129,841,920 CAD, in compensation for its investments, lost profits and the repairs needed to be made to its facility post-termination of the business relationship and removal of the Company’s equipment. The case is at a preliminary stage. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. On December 7, 2023, the Company filed a motion for declinatory exception to stay the proceedings pending before the Superior Court of Quebec, district of Montreal, and refer the dispute to arbitration in California. A hearing on the motion for declinatory exception occurred on April 25, 2024. By judgment dated May 9, 2024, the Superior Court of Quebec granted the motion for declinatory exception filed by the Company and declared that the courts sitting in Los Angeles County, in the State of California, are in a better position to decide the dispute. BVeggie appealed the court’s decision on June 7, 2024, and the Company filed a cross-appeal on June 18, 2024. The appeals are expected to be heard by the end of 2025. The litigation in Quebec is currently suspended pending the outcome of the appeals. In June 2024 and in parallel to the litigation mentioned above, BVeggie filed and served legal proceedings against the Company before the Superior Court of Quebec’s District of Montreal, asking that an agreement between the parties by which BVeggie was to purchase certain machinery from the Company, in the amount of $5.1 million, be voided. This litigation is also currently suspended pending the outcome of the aforementioned appeals. Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al. On May 11, 2023, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03602. On July 26, 2023, the Court granted Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for its counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On August 9, 2023, the case was re-captioned as Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03602 (“SHEPP Action”). On October 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s ability to manufacture its products at scale and to its partners’ specifications. The complaint seeks an order certifying the class; awarding compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ and expert fees; and granting other unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. The complaint alleges causes of action under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 5, 2020 and October 13, 2022, inclusive. On December 8, 2023, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss in March 2024. On August 9, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss but granted plaintiffs’ leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 6, 2024 (the “First Amended Complaint”), which no longer asserted a claim under Section 20A and which no longer included two of the individual defendants from the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on September 30, 2024. A hearing was held on November 25, 2024. On February 27, 2025, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs did not appeal the court’s decision. Accordingly, the SHEPP Action was terminated. Stockholder Derivative Litigation Actions Following the SHEPP Action, derivative shareholder actions were filed by purported stockholders against the Company and certain directors and officers. On July 21, 2023, a derivative shareholder action was filed against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Gervat v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05954 (“Gervat Action”). The Gervat Action alleges substantially similar facts as those alleged in the SHEPP Action. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and gross mismanagement. It also asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against a subset of defendants and seeks contribution for violations of Sections10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the SHEPP Action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only. On July 27, 2023, a second derivative shareholder action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Brink v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06110 (“Brink Action”), alleging substantially the same causes of action as alleged in the Gervat Action and facts substantially similar to those alleged in the SHEPP Action. On August 15, 2023, the Gervat and Brink Actions were consolidated into a single matter, with the complaint in the Gervat Action being the operative one, and such consolidated case was captioned In Re Beyond Meat, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-05954 (“Consolidated Derivative Action”). The Consolidated Derivative Action was stayed pending resolution of the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the SHEPP Action. On April 28, 2025, the stay lifted. On May 7, 2025, the parties in the Consolidated Derivative Action filed a stipulation seeking that the court dismiss the action without prejudice. On August 4, 2023, a third derivative shareholder action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, captioned Moore v. Nelson, et al., Case No. 23STCV18587 (“Moore Action”), alleging causes of action substantially similar to those alleged in the Consolidated Derivative Action and facts substantially similar to those alleged in the SHEPP Action. On January 23, 2024, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On December 8, 2023, a fourth derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Gilardy v. Brown, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01415 (“Gilardy Action”). The Gilardy Action alleges causes of action substantially similar to those alleged in the Consolidated Derivative Action and Moore Action and facts substantially similar to those alleged in the SHEPP Action. On April 23, 2025, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On April 24, 2025, the court entered the order of dismissal. Litigation Pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) On November 17, 2023, purported stockholder Christina Brown (“Brown”) issued a books and records demand pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL seeking documents, including board minutes and materials generally related to the same issues as those raised in the SHEPP Action and related derivative actions. On December 12, 2023, Brown filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court naming the Company as defendant and seeking such documents pursuant to Section 220, captioned Brown v. Beyond Meat, Case No. 2023-1262 (Del. Ch.). The parties submitted periodic status reports to the court on April 12, 2024, July 9, 2024, October 7, 2024 and December 9, 2024. On January 13, 2025, the court relieved the parties of any further reporting requirements and noted that the action remained stayed until relief is requested or the action is ripe for dismissal. On April 24, 2025, Brown dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Consumer Class Actions Regarding Protein Claims From May 31, 2022 through January 13, 2023, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the Company’s products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states’ laws. Specifically, each of these lawsuits allege one or more of the following theories of liability: (i) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; (ii) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; and (iii) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are “all-natural,” “organic,” or contain no “synthetic” ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. The named plaintiffs of each complaint seek to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. Additional complaints asserting these theories of liability are possible. Some lawsuits previously filed were voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed without prejudice, though they may be refiled. On November 14, 2022, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the Panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The Panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings, In re: Beyond Meat, Inc. Protein Content Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-00669 (N.D. Ill.) (the “MDL”). On March 3, 2023, the MDL court held the initial status conference. The MDL court granted plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim class counsel. On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Company’s motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 5, 2023. The Company’s reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on July 21, 2023. On February 22, 2024, the MDL court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. On March 5, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report noting they had agreed to engage in mediation. On April 24, 2024, the parties engaged in mediation before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.) but did not reach agreement. Negotiations continued and the parties entered into a confidential binding settlement term sheet on May 6, 2024. On July 8, 2024, the parties entered into a class action settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company has agreed to contribute $7.5 million to a settlement fund in full satisfaction of all settlement costs and attorneys’ fees. On August 5, 2024, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The MDL court granted the motion for preliminary approval on August 14, 2024. On January 23, 2025, upon reviewing submissions from the court-appointed settlement administrator and the plaintiffs acting on behalf of the class, and after holding a final settlement hearing, the court issued a minute order approving the class action settlement and indicating a final approval order will be entered. On March 24, 2025, the court issued the final approval order. Final approval resolves the claims of all persons (individuals and/or entities) who purchased any Beyond Meat product (as defined in the settlement agreement) for household use and not for resale or distribution, from May 31, 2018 to August 14, 2024. The Company paid $250,000 to the settlement fund in August 2024. The final effective date of the settlement agreement was on April 24, 2025. The Company recorded $7.5 million in SG&A expenses in its condensed consolidated statement of operations and paid $250,000 in the year ended December 31, 2024, and included $7.25 million in Accrued litigation settlement costs in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The Company’s final payment of $7.25 million is to be paid into escrow by May 14, 2025. The active lawsuits, each of which was consolidated and transferred to the MDL and is subject to the class action settlement agreement, are: •Roberts v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02861 (N.D. Ill.) (filed May 31, 2022) •Cascio v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-04018 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed July 8, 2022) •Miller v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed July 26, 2022) •Garcia v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00297 (S.D. Iowa.) (filed September 9, 2022) •Borovoy v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06302 (N.D. Ill.) (filed September 30, 2022 in DuPage Co., Ill.; removed on Nov. 10, 2022) •Zakinov v Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00144 (S.D. Tex.) (filed January 13, 2023) Interbev In October 2020, Interbev, a French trade association for the livestock and meat industry sent a cease-and-desist letter to one of the Company’s contract manufacturers alleging that the use of “meat” and meat-related terms is misleading the French consumer. Despite the Company’s best efforts to reach a settlement, including a formal settlement proposal from the Company in March 2021, the association no longer responded. Instead, on March 13, 2022, the Company was served a summons by Interbev to appear before the Commercial Court of Paris (the “Economic Activities Court”). The summons alleges that the Company misleads the French consumer with references to e.g. “plant based meat,” “plant based burger” and related descriptive names, and alleges that the Company is denigrating meat and meat products. The relief sought by Interbev includes (i) changing the presentation of Beyond Meat products to avoid any potential confusion with meat products, (ii) publication of the judgment of the court in the media, and (iii) damages of EUR 200,000. On October 12, 2022, the Company submitted its brief in defense. On February 1, 2023, the French trade association submitted updated pleadings to the Economic Activities Court. The association maintains its position that the Company is misleading the consumer, and additionally alleges that the Company is engaging in unlawful comparative advertising of its products with respect to meat and meat products. The relief sought is unchanged. On May 24, 2023, the Company submitted its defense, strongly disputing these claims. In September 2023, the Company submitted a request to stay proceedings in the commercial litigation proceedings, pending the decision of the CJEU in the administrative litigation case against the Contested Decree. On September 27, 2023, Interbev obtained an extension to submit a response to the Company. On October 25, 2023, Interbev submitted its response opposing the Company’s request to stay proceedings and asking that the written procedure of the case be closed. The Company responded on November 22, 2023, and Interbev submitted an additional reply on January 16, 2024. On March 20, 2024, the Economic Activities Court held a hearing on the decision to stay proceedings, and on April 25, 2024, the Economic Activities Court decided that the case should proceed. To that end, the Economic Activities Court set the date for an oral hearing on September 4, 2024, which was subsequently postponed to December 18, 2024, following a joint request from the parties. Interbev submitted its last written brief on September 30, 2024. The Company filed its last written brief on October 28, 2024. On November 26, 2024, Interbev filed an amended brief, including a reference to the CJEU judgment of October 4, 2024, in which the CJEU ruled that "meat" is defined under EU law as "edible parts of certain animals," meaning that the Company could not use the term, even in its marketing materials. The Company filed a subsequent amended brief on December 3, 2024. On December 17, 2024, Interbev submitted a copy of the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision partially rejecting the Company’s appeal against the first instance decision taken by the EUIPO on May 7, 2024 by which the latter invalidated the Caped Steer logo/mark. The hearing on the merits was held on December 18, 2024. Initially, a first-instance decision was expected on February 17, 2025, but it was postponed to February 20, 2025, and then again to February 27, 2025. On February 27, 2025, the Economic Activities Court rendered its first-instance judgment (the “Judgment”). In the Judgment, the Court ruled that (i) the Company may continue to use meaty names (sausage, burger, etc.) for its products, but that it must immediately cease using the term “meat” to describe them (the Court relied on the CJEU ’s decision of October 4, 2024 on this point). The Court considers that this can be done immediately as the term “meat” is only used on the Company’s website and social media; (ii) the Company must remove the caped steer logo from its packaging and communications within 18 months of service of the Judgment (the Court relied on the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision of December 17, 2024 on this point); (iii) the Court considered that from the time of its penetration of the French market until 2021, Beyond referred French consumers to its US social media. These media contained health claims that are illegal in Europe and thus constituted a misleading practice. However, the Court noted that such activity had ceased; and (iv) the Court found that the Company engages in illegal comparative advertising by comparing its products to meat in a subjective matter (e.g., better taste, better for the environment, healthier than animal meat) and ordered it to immediately cease all communications that equate its products to meat and/or include a subjective comparison. The decisions under points (i) and (iv) above were made under a daily penalty of EUR 1,000 starting to count one month after the service of the Judgment on the Company. However, the Court also dismissed several of Interbev’s other arguments. In complete contradiction to its rulings above, the Court found that the physical and nutritional characteristics of the Company’s products, their packaging, labeling, the indication of source of protein or reach in protein, and their general presentation do not create any confusion between the Company’s products and meat or meat products. Moreover, the presentation of the Company’s products in the meat aisle of supermarkets was irrelevant for the question of whether or not there was confusion between the products and meat. This means that the Company does not need to change the brand name—Beyond Meat—nor does the Company need to make any changes to the meaty names of the Company’s products. The Company does not need to make any changes to the physical and nutritional characteristics of the Company’ products, or any changes to the labels or lists of ingredients of the Company’s products. The Company will continue to present its products as an alternative source of protein. In terms of costs and damages, the Court ordered the Company, as well as The New Plant, to pay EUR 1 for financial damage, EUR 50,000 for moral damage and EUR 15,000 for legal costs to Interbev. The publication of the Judgment in three specialized reviews/magazines has also been ordered, unless there is an appeal. The Judgment is subject to appeal before the Paris Court of Appeals within a period of three months starting from the service of the Judgment. The Company is examining the Judgment with a view to a recourse against it as well as taking steps to comply with the Judgment as necessary. On April 21, 2023, Interbev filed two actions before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (the “EUIPO”) to cancel the Company’s EU trademark registration for the Caped Steer logo. Interbev sought cancellation of the trademark, alleging that the trademark was invalid because it allegedly misleads the public about the nature and characteristics of the products offered under the mark. Interbev also sought cancellation on the basis of allegedly misleading use. On July 7, 2023, the Company submitted its responses to these actions, strongly disputing these claims and defending its use and registration of the Caped Steer logo. Interbev’s response regarding misleading use of the mark was filed on September 14, 2023, and the Company responded on November 17, 2023. Interbev’s response regarding the invalidity of the mark was filed and served on the Company in November 2023, and the Company responded on January 12, 2024. On May 7, 2024, the Company was served with the EUIPO’s first instance decision regarding the invalidity of the mark. The EUIPO held the mark to be invalid insofar as the registration covered specifically meat or dairy substitute goods. The EUIPO held the trademark to be valid insofar as the registration is for other plant, cereal, vegetable, fruit or nut-based goods. The Company filed a formal appeal of the first instance decision on July 5, 2024, followed by its substantive grounds of appeal on September 9, 2024. Interbev filed a response on November 11, 2024. On December 17, 2024, the Company was served with the EUIPO Board of Appeal decision. The Board of Appeal upheld the appeal on one point, allowing the goods chili con carne to also remain on the register and confirmed the first instance decision on all other points. The Company decided against a further appeal, i.e. against bringing an action to the EU General Court in the matter. Decree prohibiting meat names On June 29, 2022, France adopted a Decree implementing a prohibition of June 2020 on the use of denominations used for foodstuffs of animal origin to describe, market or promote foodstuffs containing plant proteins (the “Contested Decree”). The Contested Decree prohibited the use of meat names (such as “sausage” or “meatballs”) for plant-based products, from its date of entry into force on October 1, 2022. On July 27, 2022, the French High Administrative Court issued a temporary and partial suspension of the execution of the Contested Decree, in response to a motion filed by a French trade association. On October 21, 2022, the Company filed a request for annulment of the Contested Decree before the French High Administrative Court. On November 16, 2022, the Company filed a voluntary intervention in the French trade association’s own application for annulment, to ensure that both the Company’s voice and strong EU law arguments were heard. On January 23, 2023, the French Ministry for the Economy (the “French Ministry”) responded to the Company’s request for annulment and intervention. The French Ministry’s response made clear that it would enforce the Contested Decree as a blanket ban on the use of all “meaty” names for plant-based products in France. On April 20, 2023, a number of plant-based companies voluntarily filed interventions in support of the Company’s case. On July 12, 2023, the French High Administrative Court issued an intermediate judgment in the proceedings against the French meaty names ban. The court held that there were a number of difficulties interpreting EU law, which will be decisive for the resolution of the case. For that reason, the French High Administrative Court referred the case to the CJEU, which is the highest court in the EU and can issue a legally binding interpretation of EU law valid in all 27 EU member states, including France. The French High Administrative Court is bound to follow judgments of the CJEU. The procedure before the CJEU started on August 22, 2023, and the Company filed its submission on October 31, 2023. On January 15, 2024, the CJEU closed the written procedure. The period to request an oral hearing closed on February 5, 2024. In parallel to the litigation before the CJEU against the Contested Decree, on August 23, 2023, France published a proposal for a new decree replacing the Contested Decree (the “New Decree”). The New Decree has removed some of the Contested Decree’s most open-ended language, but essentially maintains the prohibition on meaty names for plant-based proteins. The New Decree was subject to administrative review procedure by the European Commission (the EU’s executive body) and the EU member states other than France. The six-months standstill period under that procedure ended on February 23, 2024. The Company supported plant-based protein trade associations against the New Decree. On February 26, 2024, the New Decree was adopted. However, on April 10, 2024, the French High Administrative Court decided once again to postpone the applicability of the New Decree. The interim relief judge noted that there were serious doubts as to whether such national measures could be adopted based on EU law, which had already prompted the ongoing CJEU litigation. In this context, on March 1, 2024, the CJEU requested the French High Administrative Court to provide its view on the impact of the adoption of the New Decree on the litigation against the Contested Decree, and whether it should be declared moot or it should be allowed to proceed. On March 14, 2024, the French High Administrative Court responded to the CJEU's request for information asking it to rule in the current proceedings. On April 15, 2024, the CJEU decided that the litigation against the Contested Decree would proceed, and that an oral hearing was not necessary. On October 4, 2024, the CJEU rendered its judgment. The judgment of the CJEU determined that the manner in which the Contested Decree seeks to ban meat names for plant-based foods is unlawful under EU law. It sets a precedent on the extent to which EU member states may regulate the naming of plant-based foods at the national level in the absence of harmonization at the EU level. In its judgment, the CJEU also ruled that “meat” is defined under EU law as “edible parts of certain animals.” The Company is taking the view that the court’s interpretation only affects the use of the term in the sales denomination on the label and not the use of the term in marketing and advertising materials. Following the CJEU’s judgment, the case was referred to the French High Administrative Court, which, on January 28, 2025, annulled the Contested Decree and the New Decree. Beyond Meat will be reimbursed by the French State for legal costs incurred in challenging the Contested Decree, for a total of 3,000 euros. Arbitration with Former Co-Manufacturer In March 2024, a former co-manufacturer (“Manufacturer”) brought an action against the Company in a confidential arbitration proceeding. The Company had entered into an agreement with the Manufacturer, under which the Manufacturer was responsible for producing products on behalf of the Company. The Company terminated the agreement in November 2023 due to the Manufacturer’s failure to produce food in compliance with applicable laws, as required by the agreement. The Manufacturer alleges that the Company terminated the agreement without a contractual basis to do so and that it is owed past and future payments under the agreement. The Manufacturer claims total damages of at least approximately $73.0 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. In October 2024, the Company filed amended counterclaims against the Manufacturer for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, false promise, concealment, and intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The Company intends to vigorously prosecute the claims asserted against the Manufacturer. The arbitration commenced in the first quarter of 2025 and is ongoing.

Commitments and Contingencies

On January 14, 2021, the Company entered into the Campus Lease with HC Hornet Way, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Landlord”), to house the Company’s Campus Headquarters.

Under the terms of the Campus Lease, the Company will lease an aggregate of approximately 282,000 rentable square feet in a portion of a building located in El Segundo, California, to be built out by the Landlord and delivered to the Company in multiple phases. As of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company has recognized a right-of-use asset and lease liability for Phase 1-A and Phase 1-B in its condensed consolidated balance sheet.

On September 17, 2024, the Company entered into an amendment to the Campus Lease, which amendment: (i) revised the square footage of the premises, building and project to: (a) increase the Company’s base rent by approximately $851,000 over the initial lease term; (b) adjust the Company’s percentage share of direct expenses; and (c) increase the tenant improvement allowance to reflect a reduction in the scope of landlord’s work; (ii) specify which improvements must be removed by the Company from the premises if the premises are not occupied in their entirety throughout the initial lease term and first extension term; and (iii) address other ministerial matters concerning the Campus Lease. Aggregate payments towards base rent over the initial lease term associated with the remaining phases not yet delivered to the Company will be approximately $79.6 million.

Concurrent with the Company’s execution of the Campus Lease, the Company delivered to the Landlord a letter of credit in the amount of $12.5 million as security for the performance of its obligations under the Campus Lease, which amount will decrease to: (i) $6.3 million on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date (as defined in the Campus Lease); (ii) $3.1 million on the eighth (8th) anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date; and (iii) $0 in the event the Company receives certain credit ratings; provided the Company is not then in default of its obligations under the Campus Lease. The letter of credit is secured by a $12.6 million deposit included in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets as “Restricted cash, non-current” as of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

The lease on the Company’s Manhattan Beach Project Innovation Center expired on January 31, 2024.

Given the Company’s intention to reduce its overall operating expenses and cash expenditures, on February 2, 2024, the Company terminated the agreement to purchase the Enschede Property and the security deposit was returned to the Company, which was subsequently paid to the purchaser of the property to be applied towards the deposit and future lease payments. The Company entered into a lease agreement with the purchaser of the property to lease the approximately 114,000 square foot property for an initial period of five years with an option to renew for an additional five years at an annual rent of approximately €1.0 million.

China Investment and Lease Agreement

In 2020, the Company and its subsidiary, BYND JX, entered into an investment agreement with the Administrative Committee (the “JX Committee”) of the Jiaxing Economic & Technological Development Zone (the “JXEDZ”) pursuant to which, among other things, BYND JX has agreed to make certain investments in the JXEDZ in two phases of development, and the Company has agreed to guarantee certain repayment obligations of BYND JX under such agreement. In the three months ended March 29, 2025 and March 30, 2024, the Company received $0 and $0.5 million, respectively, in subsidies from the JXEDZ Finance Bureau.

During Phase 1, the Company agreed to invest $10.0 million as the registered capital of BYND JX in the JXEDZ through intercompany investment in BYND JX and BYND JX agreed to lease a facility in the JXEDZ for a minimum of two years. In connection with such agreement, BYND JX entered into a factory leasing contract with a JXEDZ company, pursuant to which BYND JX agreed to lease and renovate a facility in the JXEDZ and lease it for a minimum of two years. In the year ended December 31, 2022, the lease was amended to extend the term for an additional five years without rent escalation. In the fourth quarter of 2021, BYND JX leased an approximately 12,000 square foot facility in Shanghai, China, for a period of eight years, which is used as a local research and development facility. In connection with its suspension of operational activities in China, the Company sent the landlord a notice of termination of this lease effective as of May 20, 2025. As of March 29, 2025, the Company had invested $22.0 million as the registered capital of BYND JX and advanced $20.0 million to BYND JX.

In the event that the Company and BYND JX determine, in their sole discretion, to proceed with the Phase 2 development in the JXEDZ, BYND JX has agreed in the first stage of Phase 2 to increase its registered capital to $40.0 million and to acquire the land use right to a state-owned land plot in the JXEDZ to conduct development and construction of a new production facility. Following the first stage of Phase 2, the Company and BYND JX may determine, in their sole discretion, to permit BYND JX to obtain a second state-owned land plot in the JXEDZ in order to construct an additional facility thereon.

On February 24, 2025, as part of the Company’s Global Operations Review, the Company’s board of directors approved a plan to suspend the Company’s operational activities in China, which are estimated to cease by the end of the second quarter of 2025.

The Planet Partnership

In 2021, the Company entered into the Planet Partnership, LLC (“TPP”), a joint venture with PepsiCo, Inc., to develop, produce and market innovative snack and beverage products made from plant-based protein. In the three months ended March 29, 2025 and March 30, 2024, the Company recognized its share of the net loss (income) in TPP in the amount of $11,000 and $(7,000), respectively. As of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company had contributed its share of the investment in TPP in the amount of $27.6 million. See Note 12.

In 2023, the Company continued the process of renegotiating certain contracts and changing operating activities related to Beyond Meat Jerky and assumed distribution responsibilities for Beyond Meat Jerky in the fourth quarter of 2023. As part of its Global Operations Review, in 2023, the Company made the decision to discontinue the Beyond Meat Jerky product line and discontinued it in 2024.

Purchase Commitments

On July 1, 2023, the Company and Roquette Frères entered into a second amendment (the “Second Amendment”) to the Company’s existing pea protein supply agreement dated January 10, 2020, as amended by the first amendment dated August 3, 2022 (the “First Amendment”). Pursuant to the Second Amendment, the terms of the agreement and existing purchase commitments set forth in the First Amendment were revised and extended through December 31, 2025. Pursuant to the Second Amendment, the purchase commitment was revised such that the Company had committed to purchase pea protein inventory totaling $17.0 million in 2025, of which $13.6 million remains as of March 29, 2025.

On April 6, 2022, the Company entered into a co-manufacturing agreement (“Agreement”) with a co-manufacturer to manufacture various products for the Company. The Agreement included a minimum order quantity commitment per month and an aggregate quantity over a five-year term. On November 21, 2023, the Company terminated the Agreement because the co-manufacturer failed to meet its obligations under the Agreement and recorded $4.4 million in termination-related charges. In March 2024, the co-manufacturer brought an action against the Company in a confidential arbitration proceeding. See Litigation—Arbitration with Former Co-Manufacturer.

In connection with the matters described below, the Company has accrued for loss contingencies where it believes that losses are probable and estimable. No loss contingency is recorded for matters where such losses are either not probable or reasonably estimable (or both). Although it is reasonably possible that actual losses could be in excess of the Company’s accrual, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of its accrual, due to various reasons, including, among others, that: (i) the proceedings are in early stages or no claims have been asserted, (ii) specific damages have not been sought in all of these matters, (iii) damages, if asserted, are considered unsupported and/or exaggerated, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions or settlements, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories presented. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending legal proceedings, and some of the matters discussed below seek or may seek potentially large and/or indeterminate amounts. Any such loss or excess loss could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows or on the Company’s financial condition.

In addition to the matters described below, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Based on the facts currently available, the Company does not believe that the disposition of such other matters that are pending or asserted will have a material effect on its financial statements.

Aliments BVeggie, Inc.

In November 2023, Aliments BVeggie, Inc. (“BVeggie”) filed and served legal proceedings against the Company before the Superior Court of Quebec’s District of Montreal. BVeggie alleges, among other things that: (i) in 2019, the Company and BVeggie entered into a co-manufacturing agreement, by which BVeggie would produce and deliver products for the benefit of the Company, in exchange for a tolling fee to be paid per pound of product produced and delivered to the Company; (ii) the Company would have made false and misleading statements regarding the volume of purchase orders it would provide BVeggie; (iii) BVeggie invested significant sums to adapt its facilities for the intended production; (iv) the Company fell short of its undertakings and promises; and (v) in March 2023, the Company illegally terminated the business relationship. BVeggie intends to claim damages in the total amount of 129,841,920 CAD, in compensation for its investments, lost profits and the repairs needed to be made to its facility post-termination of the business relationship and removal of the Company’s equipment. The case is at a preliminary stage. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. On December 7, 2023, the Company filed a motion for declinatory exception to stay the

proceedings pending before the Superior Court of Quebec, district of Montreal, and refer the dispute to arbitration in California. A hearing on the motion for declinatory exception occurred on April 25, 2024. By judgment dated May 9, 2024, the Superior Court of Quebec granted the motion for declinatory exception filed by the Company and declared that the courts sitting in Los Angeles County, in the State of California, are in a better position to decide the dispute. BVeggie appealed the court’s decision on June 7, 2024, and the Company filed a cross-appeal on June 18, 2024. The appeals are expected to be heard by the end of 2025. The litigation in Quebec is currently suspended pending the outcome of the appeals.

In June 2024 and in parallel to the litigation mentioned above, BVeggie filed and served legal proceedings against the Company before the Superior Court of Quebec’s District of Montreal, asking that an agreement between the parties by which BVeggie was to purchase certain machinery from the Company, in the amount of $5.1 million, be voided. This litigation is also currently suspended pending the outcome of the aforementioned appeals.

Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al.

On May 11, 2023, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03602. On July 26, 2023, the Court granted Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for its counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On August 9, 2023, the case was re-captioned as Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03602 (“SHEPP Action”). On October 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s ability to manufacture its products at scale and to its partners’ specifications. The complaint seeks an order certifying the class; awarding compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ and expert fees; and granting other unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. The complaint alleges causes of action under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 5, 2020 and October 13, 2022, inclusive. On December 8, 2023, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss in March 2024. On August 9, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss but granted plaintiffs’ leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 6, 2024 (the “First Amended Complaint”), which no longer asserted a claim under Section 20A and which no longer included two of the individual defendants from the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on September 30, 2024. A hearing was held on November 25, 2024. On February 27, 2025, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs did not appeal the court’s decision. Accordingly, the SHEPP Action was terminated.

Stockholder Derivative Litigation Actions

Following the SHEPP Action, derivative shareholder actions were filed by purported stockholders against the Company and certain directors and officers. On July 21, 2023, a derivative shareholder action was filed against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Gervat v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05954 (“Gervat Action”). The Gervat Action alleges substantially similar facts as those alleged in the SHEPP Action. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and gross mismanagement. It also asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against a subset of defendants and seeks contribution for violations of Sections10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the SHEPP Action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only. On July 27, 2023, a second derivative shareholder

action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Brink v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06110 (“Brink Action”), alleging substantially the same causes of action as alleged in the Gervat Action and facts substantially similar to those alleged in the SHEPP Action. On August 15, 2023, the Gervat and Brink Actions were consolidated into a single matter, with the complaint in the Gervat Action being the operative one, and such consolidated case was captioned In Re Beyond Meat, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-05954 (“Consolidated Derivative Action”). The Consolidated Derivative Action was stayed pending resolution of the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the SHEPP Action. On April 28, 2025, the stay lifted. On May 7, 2025, the parties in the Consolidated Derivative Action filed a stipulation seeking that the court dismiss the action without prejudice.

On August 4, 2023, a third derivative shareholder action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, captioned Moore v. Nelson, et al., Case No. 23STCV18587 (“Moore Action”), alleging causes of action substantially similar to those alleged in the Consolidated Derivative Action and facts substantially similar to those alleged in the SHEPP Action. On January 23, 2024, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On December 8, 2023, a fourth derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Gilardy v. Brown, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01415 (“Gilardy Action”). The Gilardy Action alleges causes of action substantially similar to those alleged in the Consolidated Derivative Action and Moore Action and facts substantially similar to those alleged in the SHEPP Action. On April 23, 2025, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On April 24, 2025, the court entered the order of dismissal.

Litigation Pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”)

On November 17, 2023, purported stockholder Christina Brown (“Brown”) issued a books and records demand pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL seeking documents, including board minutes and materials generally related to the same issues as those raised in the SHEPP Action and related derivative actions. On December 12, 2023, Brown filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court naming the Company as defendant and seeking such documents pursuant to Section 220, captioned Brown v. Beyond Meat, Case No. 2023-1262 (Del. Ch.). The parties submitted periodic status reports to the court on April 12, 2024, July 9, 2024, October 7, 2024 and December 9, 2024. On January 13, 2025, the court relieved the parties of any further reporting requirements and noted that the action remained stayed until relief is requested or the action is ripe for dismissal. On April 24, 2025, Brown dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Consumer Class Actions Regarding Protein Claims

From May 31, 2022 through January 13, 2023, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the Company’s products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states’ laws. Specifically, each of these lawsuits allege one or more of the following theories of liability: (i) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; (ii) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; and (iii) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are “all-natural,” “organic,” or contain no “synthetic” ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. The named plaintiffs of each complaint seek to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. Additional complaints asserting these theories of liability are possible. Some lawsuits previously filed were voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed without prejudice, though they may be refiled.

On November 14, 2022, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the Panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The Panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating

the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings, In re: Beyond Meat, Inc. Protein Content Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-00669 (N.D. Ill.) (the “MDL”).

On March 3, 2023, the MDL court held the initial status conference. The MDL court granted plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim class counsel. On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Company’s motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 5, 2023. The Company’s reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on July 21, 2023.

On February 22, 2024, the MDL court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. On March 5, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report noting they had agreed to engage in mediation. On April 24, 2024, the parties engaged in mediation before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.) but did not reach agreement. Negotiations continued and the parties entered into a confidential binding settlement term sheet on May 6, 2024. On July 8, 2024, the parties entered into a class action settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company has agreed to contribute $7.5 million to a settlement fund in full satisfaction of all settlement costs and attorneys’ fees.

On August 5, 2024, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The MDL court granted the motion for preliminary approval on August 14, 2024.

On January 23, 2025, upon reviewing submissions from the court-appointed settlement administrator and the plaintiffs acting on behalf of the class, and after holding a final settlement hearing, the court issued a minute order approving the class action settlement and indicating a final approval order will be entered. On March 24, 2025, the court issued the final approval order. Final approval resolves the claims of all persons (individuals and/or entities) who purchased any Beyond Meat product (as defined in the settlement agreement) for household use and not for resale or distribution, from May 31, 2018 to August 14, 2024.

The Company paid $250,000 to the settlement fund in August 2024. The final effective date of the settlement agreement was on April 24, 2025. The Company recorded $7.5 million in SG&A expenses in its condensed consolidated statement of operations and paid $250,000 in the year ended December 31, 2024, and included $7.25 million in Accrued litigation settlement costs in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The Company’s final payment of $7.25 million is to be paid into escrow by May 14, 2025.

The active lawsuits, each of which was consolidated and transferred to the MDL and is subject to the class action settlement agreement, are:

•Roberts v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02861 (N.D. Ill.) (filed May 31, 2022)

•Cascio v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-04018 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed July 8, 2022)

•Miller v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed July 26, 2022)

•Garcia v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00297 (S.D. Iowa.) (filed September 9, 2022)

•Borovoy v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06302 (N.D. Ill.) (filed September 30, 2022 in DuPage Co., Ill.; removed on Nov. 10, 2022)

•Zakinov v Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00144 (S.D. Tex.) (filed January 13, 2023)

In October 2020, Interbev, a French trade association for the livestock and meat industry sent a cease-and-desist letter to one of the Company’s contract manufacturers alleging that the use of “meat” and meat-related terms is misleading the French consumer. Despite the Company’s best efforts to reach a settlement, including a formal settlement proposal from the Company in March 2021, the association no longer responded. Instead, on March 13, 2022, the Company was served a summons by Interbev to appear before the Commercial Court of

Paris (the “Economic Activities Court”). The summons alleges that the Company misleads the French consumer with references to e.g. “plant based meat,” “plant based burger” and related descriptive names, and alleges that the Company is denigrating meat and meat products. The relief sought by Interbev includes (i) changing the presentation of Beyond Meat products to avoid any potential confusion with meat products, (ii) publication of the judgment of the court in the media, and (iii) damages of EUR 200,000. On October 12, 2022, the Company submitted its brief in defense.

On February 1, 2023, the French trade association submitted updated pleadings to the Economic Activities Court. The association maintains its position that the Company is misleading the consumer, and additionally alleges that the Company is engaging in unlawful comparative advertising of its products with respect to meat and meat products. The relief sought is unchanged. On May 24, 2023, the Company submitted its defense, strongly disputing these claims. In September 2023, the Company submitted a request to stay proceedings in the commercial litigation proceedings, pending the decision of the CJEU in the administrative litigation case against the Contested Decree. On September 27, 2023, Interbev obtained an extension to submit a response to the Company. On October 25, 2023, Interbev submitted its response opposing the Company’s request to stay proceedings and asking that the written procedure of the case be closed. The Company responded on November 22, 2023, and Interbev submitted an additional reply on January 16, 2024. On March 20, 2024, the Economic Activities Court held a hearing on the decision to stay proceedings, and on April 25, 2024, the Economic Activities Court decided that the case should proceed. To that end, the Economic Activities Court set the date for an oral hearing on September 4, 2024, which was subsequently postponed to December 18, 2024, following a joint request from the parties. Interbev submitted its last written brief on September 30, 2024. The Company filed its last written brief on October 28, 2024. On November 26, 2024, Interbev filed an amended brief, including a reference to the CJEU judgment of October 4, 2024, in which the CJEU ruled that "meat" is defined under EU law as "edible parts of certain animals," meaning that the Company could not use the term, even in its marketing materials. The Company filed a subsequent amended brief on December 3, 2024. On December 17, 2024, Interbev submitted a copy of the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision partially rejecting the Company’s appeal against the first instance decision taken by the EUIPO on May 7, 2024 by which the latter invalidated the Caped Steer logo/mark. The hearing on the merits was held on December 18, 2024. Initially, a first-instance decision was expected on February 17, 2025, but it was postponed to February 20, 2025, and then again to February 27, 2025. On February 27, 2025, the Economic Activities Court rendered its first-instance judgment (the “Judgment”). In the Judgment, the Court ruled that (i) the Company may continue to use meaty names (sausage, burger, etc.) for its products, but that it must immediately cease using the term “meat” to describe them (the Court relied on the CJEU ’s decision of October 4, 2024 on this point). The Court considers that this can be done immediately as the term “meat” is only used on the Company’s website and social media; (ii) the Company must remove the caped steer logo from its packaging and communications within 18 months of service of the Judgment (the Court relied on the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision of December 17, 2024 on this point); (iii) the Court considered that from the time of its penetration of the French market until 2021, Beyond referred French consumers to its US social media. These media contained health claims that are illegal in Europe and thus constituted a misleading practice. However, the Court noted that such activity had ceased; and (iv) the Court found that the Company engages in illegal comparative advertising by comparing its products to meat in a subjective matter (e.g., better taste, better for the environment, healthier than animal meat) and ordered it to immediately cease all communications that equate its products to meat and/or include a subjective comparison. The decisions under points (i) and (iv) above were made under a daily penalty of EUR 1,000 starting to count one month after the service of the Judgment on the Company.

However, the Court also dismissed several of Interbev’s other arguments. In complete contradiction to its rulings above, the Court found that the physical and nutritional characteristics of the Company’s products, their packaging, labeling, the indication of source of protein or reach in protein, and their general presentation do not create any confusion between the Company’s products and meat or meat products. Moreover, the presentation of the Company’s products in the meat aisle of supermarkets was irrelevant for the question of whether or not

there was confusion between the products and meat. This means that the Company does not need to change the brand name—Beyond Meat—nor does the Company need to make any changes to the meaty names of the Company’s products. The Company does not need to make any changes to the physical and nutritional characteristics of the Company’ products, or any changes to the labels or lists of ingredients of the Company’s products. The Company will continue to present its products as an alternative source of protein.

In terms of costs and damages, the Court ordered the Company, as well as The New Plant, to pay EUR 1 for financial damage, EUR 50,000 for moral damage and EUR 15,000 for legal costs to Interbev. The publication of the Judgment in three specialized reviews/magazines has also been ordered, unless there is an appeal. The Judgment is subject to appeal before the Paris Court of Appeals within a period of three months starting from the service of the Judgment. The Company is examining the Judgment with a view to a recourse against it as well as taking steps to comply with the Judgment as necessary.

On April 21, 2023, Interbev filed two actions before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (the “EUIPO”) to cancel the Company’s EU trademark registration for the Caped Steer logo. Interbev sought cancellation of the trademark, alleging that the trademark was invalid because it allegedly misleads the public about the nature and characteristics of the products offered under the mark. Interbev also sought cancellation on the basis of allegedly misleading use. On July 7, 2023, the Company submitted its responses to these actions, strongly disputing these claims and defending its use and registration of the Caped Steer logo. Interbev’s response regarding misleading use of the mark was filed on September 14, 2023, and the Company responded on November 17, 2023. Interbev’s response regarding the invalidity of the mark was filed and served on the Company in November 2023, and the Company responded on January 12, 2024. On May 7, 2024, the Company was served with the EUIPO’s first instance decision regarding the invalidity of the mark. The EUIPO held the mark to be invalid insofar as the registration covered specifically meat or dairy substitute goods. The EUIPO held the trademark to be valid insofar as the registration is for other plant, cereal, vegetable, fruit or nut-based goods. The Company filed a formal appeal of the first instance decision on July 5, 2024, followed by its substantive grounds of appeal on September 9, 2024. Interbev filed a response on November 11, 2024. On December 17, 2024, the Company was served with the EUIPO Board of Appeal decision. The Board of Appeal upheld the appeal on one point, allowing the goods chili con carne to also remain on the register and confirmed the first instance decision on all other points. The Company decided against a further appeal, i.e. against bringing an action to the EU General Court in the matter.

Decree prohibiting meat names

On June 29, 2022, France adopted a Decree implementing a prohibition of June 2020 on the use of denominations used for foodstuffs of animal origin to describe, market or promote foodstuffs containing plant proteins (the “Contested Decree”). The Contested Decree prohibited the use of meat names (such as “sausage” or “meatballs”) for plant-based products, from its date of entry into force on October 1, 2022. On July 27, 2022, the French High Administrative Court issued a temporary and partial suspension of the execution of the Contested Decree, in response to a motion filed by a French trade association.

On October 21, 2022, the Company filed a request for annulment of the Contested Decree before the French High Administrative Court. On November 16, 2022, the Company filed a voluntary intervention in the French trade association’s own application for annulment, to ensure that both the Company’s voice and strong EU law arguments were heard. On January 23, 2023, the French Ministry for the Economy (the “French Ministry”) responded to the Company’s request for annulment and intervention. The French Ministry’s response made clear that it would enforce the Contested Decree as a blanket ban on the use of all “meaty” names for plant-based products in France. On April 20, 2023, a number of plant-based companies voluntarily filed interventions in support of the Company’s case.

On July 12, 2023, the French High Administrative Court issued an intermediate judgment in the proceedings against the French meaty names ban. The court held that there were a number of difficulties interpreting EU law, which will be decisive for the resolution of the case. For that reason, the French High Administrative Court referred the case to the CJEU, which is the highest court in the EU and can issue a legally binding interpretation of EU law valid in all 27 EU member states, including France. The French High Administrative Court is bound to follow judgments of the CJEU. The procedure before the CJEU started on August 22, 2023, and the Company filed its submission on October 31, 2023. On January 15, 2024, the CJEU closed the written procedure. The period to request an oral hearing closed on February 5, 2024.

In parallel to the litigation before the CJEU against the Contested Decree, on August 23, 2023, France published a proposal for a new decree replacing the Contested Decree (the “New Decree”). The New Decree has removed some of the Contested Decree’s most open-ended language, but essentially maintains the prohibition on meaty names for plant-based proteins. The New Decree was subject to administrative review procedure by the European Commission (the EU’s executive body) and the EU member states other than France. The six-months standstill period under that procedure ended on February 23, 2024. The Company supported plant-based protein trade associations against the New Decree. On February 26, 2024, the New Decree was adopted. However, on April 10, 2024, the French High Administrative Court decided once again to postpone the applicability of the New Decree. The interim relief judge noted that there were serious doubts as to whether such national measures could be adopted based on EU law, which had already prompted the ongoing CJEU litigation.

In this context, on March 1, 2024, the CJEU requested the French High Administrative Court to provide its view on the impact of the adoption of the New Decree on the litigation against the Contested Decree, and whether it should be declared moot or it should be allowed to proceed. On March 14, 2024, the French High Administrative Court responded to the CJEU's request for information asking it to rule in the current proceedings. On April 15, 2024, the CJEU decided that the litigation against the Contested Decree would proceed, and that an oral hearing was not necessary.

On October 4, 2024, the CJEU rendered its judgment. The judgment of the CJEU determined that the manner in which the Contested Decree seeks to ban meat names for plant-based foods is unlawful under EU law. It sets a precedent on the extent to which EU member states may regulate the naming of plant-based foods at the national level in the absence of harmonization at the EU level. In its judgment, the CJEU also ruled that “meat” is defined under EU law as “edible parts of certain animals.” The Company is taking the view that the court’s interpretation only affects the use of the term in the sales denomination on the label and not the use of the term in marketing and advertising materials. Following the CJEU’s judgment, the case was referred to the French High Administrative Court, which, on January 28, 2025, annulled the Contested Decree and the New Decree. Beyond Meat will be reimbursed by the French State for legal costs incurred in challenging the Contested Decree, for a total of 3,000 euros.

Arbitration with Former Co-Manufacturer

In March 2024, a former co-manufacturer (“Manufacturer”) brought an action against the Company in a confidential arbitration proceeding. The Company had entered into an agreement with the Manufacturer, under which the Manufacturer was responsible for producing products on behalf of the Company. The Company terminated the agreement in November 2023 due to the Manufacturer’s failure to produce food in compliance with applicable laws, as required by the agreement. The Manufacturer alleges that the Company terminated the agreement without a contractual basis to do so and that it is owed past and future payments under the agreement. The Manufacturer claims total damages of at least approximately $73.0 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. In October 2024, the Company filed amended counterclaims against the Manufacturer for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, false promise, concealment, and intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation.