Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 27, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Leases We paid $1.6 million and $8.3 million in rent prepayments and payments towards construction costs of the Campus Headquarters in the six months ended June 27, 2026 and year ended December 31, 2025, respectively. The Company’s lease commitments, including its Campus Headquarters lease, related amendments, sublease arrangements, and letter of credit, are described in Note 6. Big Geyser For details about the Company’s Distribution Agreement with Big Geyser and issuance of the BG Warrants in connection therewith, see Note 10. China Investment and Lease Agreement In 2020, the Company and its subsidiary, Beyond Meat (Jiaxing) Food Co., Ltd. (“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 agreed to make certain investments in the JXEDZ in two phases of development, and the Company agreed to guarantee certain repayment obligations of BYND JX under such agreement. 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 2022, the lease was amended to extend the term for an additional five years without rent escalation. On February 24, 2025, as part of the Company’s global operations review initiated in 2023 (the “Global Operations Review”), the Company’s board of directors approved a plan to suspend the Company’s operational activities in China, which ceased as of the end of 2025. As of June 27, 2026, the Company continued to use this facility in its process of winding down the operational activities in China and has notified the landlord of its intention to terminate the lease at the end of August 2026. 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 was used as a local research and development facility. In connection with the cessation of operational activities in China, BYND JX and the landlord agreed to terminate the lease early effective as of May 20, 2025. As of June 27, 2026, the Company had invested $22.5 million as the registered capital of BYND JX that included $0.5 million to fund the cessation of its operational activities in China, and advanced $20.0 million to BYND JX. During the six months ended June 27, 2026, the Company determined that the cessation of the Company’s operational activities in China was substantially complete. As a result, the Company reclassified approximately $0.9 million of cumulative foreign currency translation losses related to BYND JX from Accumulated other comprehensive loss to Other (expense) income, net in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations. 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 June 27, 2026 and June 28, 2025, the Company recognized its share of the net losses in TPP in the amount of $16,000 and $59,000, respectively. In the six months ended June 27, 2026 and June 28, 2025, the Company recognized its share of the net losses in TPP in the amount of $32,000 and $70,000, respectively. As of June 27, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had contributed its share of the investment in TPP in the amount of $27.6 million. See Note 1 5. Purchase Commitments On March 28, 2026, the Company and Roquette entered into a Sales Agreement (the “Sales Agreement”) pursuant to which Roquette will provide the Company with pea protein. The Sales Agreement expires on December 31, 2027, subject to extension or early termination under certain circumstances. The Sales Agreement provides for pea protein to be supplied by Roquette in each of 2026 and 2027, on a purchase order basis per specified minimum annual base quantities, subject to periodic adjustment based on the Company’s binding forecasted requirements throughout the term. The Company is not required to purchase and Roquette is not required to deliver pea protein in amounts in excess of such specified minimum annual quantities. The total annual amount purchased each year by the Company must be at least the minimum amount specified in the Sales Agreement, which totals in the aggregate approximately $23.5 million (subject to annual inflationary and exchange rate adjustments) over the term of the Sales Agreement. If the Company does not purchase the applicable minimum annual quantities, it will be required to pay Roquette liquidated damages calculated as a percentage of the amount the Company would have been required to pay for the unpurchased volumes in the relevant year, subject to roll over of a portion of unpurchased volumes from year to year. The Sales Agreement requires the Company to procure a $1.0 million standby letter of credit to secure its payment obligations thereunder and also provides for the Company and Roquette to indemnify one another in certain circumstances. The Company procured a $1.0 million standby letter of credit to secure its payment obligations under the Sales Agreement which is included in Restricted cash, non-current as of June 27, 2026. As of June 27, 2026, pursuant to the Sales Agreement, the Company committed to purchase pea protein inventory totaling $18.6 million as of June 27, 2026, of which $6.9 million is expected to be purchased in 2026 and $11.7 million in 2027. 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 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 were heard on October 30, 2025 and by judgment rendered on November 21, 2025, the Court of Appeal has decided to grant the Company’s motion for declinatory exception and to defer the dispute to arbitration in California. BVeggie had 60 days from the day of the judgment to file a motion for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Said delay has now elapsed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is now final. 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 was suspended pending the outcome of the aforementioned appeals. As a consequence of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, all of the aforementioned actions filed by BVeggie against the Company in Quebec are suspended indefinitely, until the JAMS arbitration tribunal has clarified its jurisdiction, via a final judgment. 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 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 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 was paid into escrow by May 14, 2025. The court appointed settlement administrator is in the process of finalizing distributions to the class. 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) 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 alleged that the Company terminated the agreement without a contractual basis to do so and that it was owed past and future payments under the agreement. The Manufacturer claimed total damages of at least approximately $73.0 million. 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. On September 15, 2025, the arbitrator issued an interim award (the “Interim Award”) and found that the Company had a valid basis to terminate the agreement with the Manufacturer. On September 25, 2025, the Manufacturer filed a request with the arbitrator to re-open the arbitration hearing. On September 29, 2025, the Company opposed this request. On October 20, 2025, the arbitrator denied the Manufacturer’s request. Shortly thereafter, the parties engaged in fees briefing. On December 10, 2025, the arbitrator issued the final award, and on December 18, 2025, the arbitrator corrected scrivener’s and other typographical errors in the final award (the “Final Award”). Certain details of the Interim Award and Final Award are confidential. The Final Award is similar to the Interim Award, but the Interim Award does not address attorneys’ fees, costs and interests. In the Final Award, the arbitrator awarded the Company: (i) $349,493 for its breach of contract claim in out of pocket costs, (ii) $7,183,782 for its negligent misrepresentation claim, which is inclusive of the $349,493 in contract damages awarded for the Company’s breach of contract claim, (iii) $6,246,693 for its attorneys’ fees; and (iv) $550,640 for its costs. In total, the arbitrator awarded the Company $13,981,115 (the “Total Award”). On January 30, 2026, the Company filed a petition to confirm the Final Award and enter judgment in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. On February 13, 2026, the Manufacturer filed an ex parte application to extend its deadline to oppose the Company’s petition and set a briefing schedule on its forthcoming petition to vacate the Final Award. The Company opposed the ex parte application. On February 17, 2026, the court granted the Manufacturer’s ex parte application and scheduled the hearing on both the Company’s petition to confirm the Final Award and enter judgment and the Manufacturer’s forthcoming petition to vacate for May 1, 2026. On March 13, 2026, the Manufacturer opposed the Company’s petition and filed a petition to vacate the Final Award. The Company’s reply in support of its petition and opposition to the Manufacturer’s petition to vacate was due on April 3, 2026. Because the parties were negotiating and finalizing a settlement agreement, they requested all deadlines be extended by two months. On April 24, 2026, the parties reached a full and final settlement in the amount of $11.0 million which was due and payable to the Company within 60 days. In June 2026, the Company received $4.0 million of the settlement amount. The remaining $7.1 million, which includes approximately $0.1 million of interest, was received by the Company on July 10, 2026. The Company recognized $11.0 million as a reduction of SG&A expenses in its unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 27, 2026, and recorded $7.1 million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets, on its unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 27, 2026. Trademark Infringement Litigation On April 28, 2022, a trademark infringement complaint for injunctive and other relief was filed against Beyond Meat in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, captioned Sonate Corporation, d/b/a Vegadelphia Foods (“Sonate”) v. Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc., Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (collectively, “Dunkin’”) and Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00812. A First Amended Complaint was filed on May 17, 2022 (the “FAC”). The FAC alleged that the Company and Dunkin’s use of the tagline “Great Taste Plant-Based,” infringed on Sonate’s registered trademark WHERE GREAT TASTE IS PLANT-BASED® (“Sonate’s trademark”). Additionally, Sonate alleged that the Company’s use of the tagline “Plant-Based Great Taste” in connection with its own sales of products also infringed on Sonate’s trademark. The FAC sought injunctive relief and a monetary award for corrective advertising, a reasonable royalty award, damages representing Sonate’s lost sales and the Company’s profits generated by the alleged likelihood of confusion, interest, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. On June 24, 2022, both the Company and Dunkin’ filed their answers to the FAC and a motion to change venue. On March 24, 2023, the court issued an order granting Dunkin’ and the Company’s motion to transfer venue and directed the clerk of the court to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts, Boston Division for all further proceedings (Case No. 1:23-cv-10690-IT). The Company contended that Sonate would not be able to meet its burden of establishing a likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the Company asserted the fair use defense to Sonate’s allegations, namely that the Company’s use of “Plant-Based Great Taste” and “Great Taste Plant-Based” satisfy the requirements of the fair use doctrine (e.g., they are only used descriptively), precluding liability. Mediation was held on September 18, 2024, at which time Dunkin’ settled its involvement in the case. On November 20, 2024, Dunkin’ was dismissed from the case with prejudice, and the case continued as to the Company. On or about March 11, 2025, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication and motions to strike some of Sonate’s expert reports and testimony. On or about March 9, 2024, Sonate filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication and on or about March 11, 2024 filed motions to strike some of the Company’s expert reports and testimony. On October 29, 2025, the Court denied Sonate’s motion for summary judgment as to issues impacting liability and granted it with respect to a portion of damages relating to the sales made through Dunkin’ stores. The Company’s motion for summary judgment as to liability for either tagline was denied. As to damages, the Company’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to corrective advertising and reasonable royalty damages and denied in part as to lost profits from lost value. The Company’s motion to strike was granted as to Sonate’s expert report and testimony as to corrective advertising damages, reasonable royalty damages and lost value. A jury trial commenced on November 10, 2025 and concluded on November 24, 2025. The Company’s primary general liability insurer has been providing the Company’s defense under its primary policy, subject to a reservation of rights. On November 24, 2025, the jury returned its verdict finding that the Company was liable for trademark infringement and that the fair use defense did not apply. The jury awarded damages as follows: $23.5 million in actual damages and $15.4 million in disgorgement of the Company’s profits. The Company has filed two post-trial requests seeking to reduce or eliminate the amount awarded by the jury. Sonate has filed motions seeking prejudgment interest, an increase in the disgorgement award, and the prompt entry of a judgment. The parties have filed oppositions to the respective motions and await the Court’s decision on the post-verdict issues. Pursuant to ASC 450, the Company recorded a $38.9 million litigation-related accrual in operating expenses in its unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations during the year ended December 31, 2025, which is subject to adjustment pending the Court’s final decision and pending any further appeal by the Company. Aljendan v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al. On January 23, 2026, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Aljendan v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00742 (the “Aljendan Action”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the book and market value of certain long-lived assets and the likelihood that the Company would have to record a material, non-cash impairment charge. The complaint seeks an order certifying the class; awarding compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ and expert fees; and granting other unspecified relief. The complaint alleges causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 27, 2025 and November 11, 2025, inclusive. On April 6, 2026, the Court appointed Brandon Mitchell Waldaias, Aaron Saran and Brandon Barclay as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Pomerantz LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. On June 1, 2026, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint similarly alleges causes of action under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 27, 2025 and March 31, 2026, inclusive. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions concerning the value of the Company’s long-lived assets, inventory, and expenses associated with a note exchange transaction, as well as the adequacy of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. On July 15, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on August 28, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Consolidated Derivative Action Following the Aljendan Action, on February 12, 2026, a derivative stockholder action was filed by a purported stockholder against certain current officers and current and former directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Azima v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01525 (the “Azima Action”). The Azima Action alleges substantially similar facts as those alleged in the Aljendan Action. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. It also asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against a subset of defendants and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the Aljendan Action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only. On April 13, 2026, the parties to the Azima Action filed a stipulation to stay the case through the resolution of the Aljendan Action. On June 1, 2026, the court granted the stipulation to stay the Azima Action. On May 15, 2026, another derivative action was filed by a purported stockholder against certain current officers and current and former directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Davis v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-05180 (the “Davis Action”). The Davis Action alleges substantially similar facts as those alleged in the Aljendan Action and the Azima Action. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only. On May 27, 2026, the Davis Action was transferred to the same court as the Azima Action. On June 2, 2026, the plaintiff in the Azima Action, the plaintiff in the Davis Action, and the defendants in both actions filed a stipulation to consolidate the Azima Action and the Davis Action and appoint co-lead counsel. On June 10, 2026, the court granted the stipulation and consolidated the cases into one action captioned In re Beyond Meat, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:26-cv-01525 (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). The terms of the stipulated stay in the Azima Action apply to the Consolidated Derivative Action. On June 4, 2026, a third derivative action was filed by two purported stockholders against certain current officers and current and former directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Perrow v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-6086 (the “Perrow Action”). The Perrow Action alleges substantially similar facts as those alleged in the Aljendan Action, the Azima Acton, and the Davis Action. The complaint asserts claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. It also asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against a subset of defendants and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the Aljendan Action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only. On July 2, 2026, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action filed a notice of related case regarding the Perrow Action, which stated that the plaintiffs in the Perrow Action do not object to the consolidation of the Perrow Action into the Consolidated Derivative Action. The Consolidated Derivative Action and the Perrow Action are at a preliminary stage. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Commitments and Contingencies

We paid $1.6 million and $8.3 million in rent prepayments and payments towards construction costs of the Campus Headquarters in the six months ended June 27, 2026 and year ended December 31, 2025, respectively. The Company’s lease commitments, including its Campus Headquarters lease, related amendments, sublease arrangements, and letter of credit, are described in Note 6.

For details about the Company’s Distribution Agreement with Big Geyser and issuance of the BG Warrants in connection therewith, see Note 10.

China Investment and Lease Agreement

In 2020, the Company and its subsidiary, Beyond Meat (Jiaxing) Food Co., Ltd. (“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 agreed to make certain investments in the JXEDZ in two phases of development, and the Company agreed to guarantee certain repayment obligations of BYND JX under such agreement.

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 2022, the lease was amended to extend the term for an additional five years without rent escalation. On February 24, 2025, as part of the Company’s global operations review initiated in 2023 (the “Global Operations Review”), the Company’s board of directors approved a plan to suspend the Company’s operational activities in China, which ceased as of the end of 2025. As of June 27, 2026, the Company continued to use this facility in its process of winding down the operational activities in China and has notified the landlord of its intention to terminate the lease at the end of August 2026.

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 was used as a local research and development facility. In connection with the cessation of operational activities in China, BYND JX and the landlord agreed to terminate the lease early effective as of May 20, 2025.

As of June 27, 2026, the Company had invested $22.5 million as the registered capital of BYND JX that included $0.5 million to fund the cessation of its operational activities in China, and advanced $20.0 million to BYND JX. During the six months ended June 27, 2026, the Company determined that the cessation of the Company’s operational activities in China was substantially complete. As a result, the Company reclassified approximately $0.9 million of cumulative foreign currency translation losses related to BYND JX from Accumulated other comprehensive loss to Other (expense) income, net in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations.

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 June 27, 2026 and June 28, 2025, the Company recognized its share of the net losses in TPP in the amount of $16,000 and $59,000, respectively. In the six months ended June 27, 2026 and June 28, 2025, the Company recognized its share of the net losses in TPP in the amount of $32,000 and $70,000, respectively. As of June 27, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had contributed its share of the investment in TPP in the amount of $27.6 million. See Note 1 5.

Purchase Commitments

On March 28, 2026, the Company and Roquette entered into a Sales Agreement (the “Sales Agreement”) pursuant to which Roquette will provide the Company with pea protein. The Sales Agreement expires on December 31, 2027, subject to extension or early termination under certain circumstances. The Sales Agreement provides for pea protein to be supplied by Roquette in each of 2026 and 2027, on a purchase order basis per specified minimum annual base quantities, subject to periodic adjustment based on the Company’s binding forecasted requirements throughout the term. The Company is not required to purchase and Roquette is not required to deliver pea protein in amounts in excess of such specified minimum annual quantities. The total annual amount purchased each year by the Company must be at least the minimum amount specified in the Sales Agreement, which totals in the aggregate approximately $23.5 million (subject to annual inflationary and exchange rate adjustments) over the term of the Sales Agreement. If the Company does not purchase the applicable minimum annual quantities, it will be required to pay Roquette liquidated damages calculated as a percentage of the amount the Company would have been required to pay for the unpurchased volumes in the relevant year, subject to roll over of a portion of unpurchased volumes from year to year. The Sales Agreement requires the Company to procure a $1.0 million standby letter of credit to secure its payment obligations thereunder and also provides for the Company and Roquette to indemnify one another in certain circumstances. The Company procured a $1.0 million standby letter of credit to secure its payment obligations under the Sales Agreement which is included in Restricted cash, non-current as of June 27, 2026. As of June 27, 2026, pursuant to the Sales Agreement, the Company committed to purchase pea protein inventory totaling $18.6 million as of June 27, 2026, of which $6.9 million is expected to be purchased in 2026 and $11.7 million in 2027.

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 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 were heard on October 30, 2025 and by judgment rendered on November 21, 2025, the Court of Appeal has decided to grant the Company’s motion for declinatory exception and to defer the dispute to arbitration in California. BVeggie had 60 days from the day of the judgment to file a motion for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Said delay has now elapsed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is now final.

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 was suspended pending the outcome of the aforementioned appeals.

As a consequence of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, all of the aforementioned actions filed by BVeggie against the Company in Quebec are suspended indefinitely, until the JAMS arbitration tribunal has clarified its jurisdiction, via a final judgment.

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 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 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 was paid into escrow by May 14, 2025. The court appointed settlement administrator is in the process of finalizing distributions to the class.

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)

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 alleged that the Company terminated the agreement without a contractual basis to do so and that it was owed past and future payments under the agreement. The Manufacturer claimed total damages of at least approximately $73.0 million. 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. On September 15, 2025, the arbitrator issued an interim award (the “Interim Award”) and found that the Company had a valid basis to terminate the agreement with the Manufacturer. On September 25, 2025, the Manufacturer filed a request with the arbitrator to re-open the arbitration hearing. On September 29, 2025, the Company opposed this request. On October 20, 2025, the arbitrator denied the Manufacturer’s request. Shortly thereafter, the parties engaged in fees briefing. On December 10, 2025, the arbitrator issued the final award, and on December 18, 2025, the arbitrator corrected scrivener’s and other typographical errors in the final award (the “Final Award”). Certain details of the Interim Award and Final Award are confidential. The Final Award is similar to the Interim Award, but the Interim Award does not address attorneys’ fees, costs and interests. In the Final Award, the arbitrator awarded the Company: (i) $349,493 for its breach of contract claim in out of pocket costs, (ii) $7,183,782 for its negligent misrepresentation claim, which is inclusive of the $349,493 in contract damages awarded for the Company’s breach of contract claim, (iii) $6,246,693 for its attorneys’ fees; and (iv) $550,640 for its costs. In total, the arbitrator awarded the Company $13,981,115 (the “Total Award”). On January 30, 2026, the Company filed a petition to confirm the Final Award and enter judgment in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. On February 13, 2026, the Manufacturer filed an ex parte application to extend its deadline to oppose the Company’s petition and set a briefing schedule on its forthcoming petition to vacate the Final Award. The Company opposed the ex parte application. On February 17, 2026, the court granted the Manufacturer’s ex parte application and scheduled the hearing on both the Company’s petition to confirm the Final Award and enter judgment and the Manufacturer’s forthcoming petition to vacate for May 1, 2026. On March 13, 2026, the Manufacturer opposed the Company’s petition and filed a petition to vacate the Final Award. The Company’s reply in support of its petition and opposition to the Manufacturer’s petition to vacate was due on April 3, 2026. Because the parties were negotiating and finalizing a settlement agreement, they requested all deadlines be extended by two months. On April 24, 2026, the parties reached a full and final settlement in the amount of $11.0 million which was due and payable to the Company within 60 days.

In June 2026, the Company received $4.0 million of the settlement amount. The remaining $7.1 million, which includes approximately $0.1 million of interest, was received by the Company on July 10, 2026. The Company recognized $11.0 million as a reduction of SG&A expenses in its unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 27, 2026, and recorded $7.1 million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets, on its unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 27, 2026.

Trademark Infringement Litigation

On April 28, 2022, a trademark infringement complaint for injunctive and other relief was filed against Beyond Meat in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, captioned Sonate Corporation, d/b/a Vegadelphia Foods (“Sonate”) v. Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc., Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (collectively, “Dunkin’”) and Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00812. A First Amended Complaint was filed on May 17, 2022 (the “FAC”). The FAC alleged that the Company and Dunkin’s use of the tagline “Great Taste Plant-Based,” infringed on Sonate’s registered trademark WHERE GREAT TASTE IS PLANT-BASED® (“Sonate’s trademark”). Additionally, Sonate alleged that the Company’s use of the tagline “Plant-Based Great Taste” in connection with its own sales of products also infringed on Sonate’s trademark. The FAC sought injunctive relief and a monetary award for corrective advertising, a reasonable royalty award, damages representing Sonate’s lost sales and the Company’s profits generated by the alleged likelihood of confusion, interest, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.

On June 24, 2022, both the Company and Dunkin’ filed their answers to the FAC and a motion to change venue. On March 24, 2023, the court issued an order granting Dunkin’ and the Company’s motion to transfer venue and directed the clerk of the court to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts, Boston Division for all further proceedings (Case No. 1:23-cv-10690-IT). The Company contended that Sonate would not be able to meet its burden of establishing a likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the Company asserted the fair use defense to Sonate’s allegations, namely that the Company’s use of “Plant-Based Great Taste” and “Great Taste Plant-Based” satisfy the requirements of the fair use doctrine (e.g., they are only used descriptively), precluding liability.

Mediation was held on September 18, 2024, at which time Dunkin’ settled its involvement in the case. On November 20, 2024, Dunkin’ was dismissed from the case with prejudice, and the case continued as to the Company. On or about March 11, 2025, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication and motions to strike some of Sonate’s expert reports and testimony. On or about March 9, 2024, Sonate filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication and on or about March 11, 2024 filed motions to strike some of the Company’s expert reports and testimony. On October 29, 2025, the Court denied Sonate’s motion for summary judgment as to issues impacting liability and granted it with respect to a portion of damages relating to the sales made through Dunkin’ stores. The Company’s motion for summary judgment as to liability for either tagline was denied. As to damages, the Company’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to corrective advertising and reasonable royalty damages and denied in part as to lost profits from lost value. The Company’s motion to strike was granted as to Sonate’s expert report and testimony as to corrective advertising damages, reasonable royalty damages and lost value. A jury trial commenced on November 10, 2025 and concluded on November 24, 2025. The Company’s primary general liability insurer has been providing the Company’s defense under its primary policy, subject to a reservation of rights.

On November 24, 2025, the jury returned its verdict finding that the Company was liable for trademark infringement and that the fair use defense did not apply. The jury awarded damages as follows: $23.5 million in actual damages and $15.4 million in disgorgement of the Company’s profits. The Company has filed two post-trial requests seeking to reduce or eliminate the amount awarded by the jury. Sonate has filed motions seeking prejudgment interest, an increase in the disgorgement award, and the prompt entry of a judgment. The parties have filed oppositions to the respective motions and await the Court’s decision on the post-verdict issues. Pursuant to ASC 450, the Company recorded a $38.9 million litigation-related accrual in operating expenses in its unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations during the year ended December 31, 2025, which is subject to adjustment pending the Court’s final decision and pending any further appeal by the Company.

Aljendan v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al.

On January 23, 2026, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Aljendan v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00742 (the “Aljendan Action”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the book and market value of certain long-lived assets and the likelihood that the Company would have to record a material, non-cash impairment charge. The complaint seeks an order certifying the class; awarding compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ and expert fees; and granting other unspecified relief. The complaint alleges causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 27, 2025 and November 11, 2025, inclusive. On April 6, 2026, the Court appointed Brandon Mitchell Waldaias, Aaron Saran and Brandon Barclay as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Pomerantz LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. On June 1, 2026, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint similarly alleges causes of action under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 27, 2025 and March 31, 2026, inclusive. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions concerning the value of the Company’s long-lived assets, inventory, and expenses associated with a note exchange transaction, as well as the adequacy of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. On July 15, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on August 28, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Consolidated Derivative Action

Following the Aljendan Action, on February 12, 2026, a derivative stockholder action was filed by a purported stockholder against certain current officers and current and former directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Azima v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01525 (the “Azima Action”). The Azima Action alleges substantially similar facts as those alleged in the Aljendan Action. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. It also asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against a subset of defendants and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the Aljendan Action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only. On April 13, 2026, the parties to the Azima Action filed a stipulation to stay the case through the resolution of the Aljendan Action. On June 1, 2026, the court granted the stipulation to stay the Azima Action.

On May 15, 2026, another derivative action was filed by a purported stockholder against certain current officers and current and former directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Davis v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-05180 (the “Davis Action”). The Davis Action alleges substantially similar facts as those alleged in the Aljendan Action and the Azima Action. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only. On May 27, 2026, the Davis Action was transferred to the same court as the Azima Action.

On June 2, 2026, the plaintiff in the Azima Action, the plaintiff in the Davis Action, and the defendants in both actions filed a stipulation to consolidate the Azima Action and the Davis Action and appoint co-lead counsel. On June 10, 2026, the court granted the stipulation and consolidated the cases into one action captioned In re Beyond Meat, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:26-cv-01525 (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). The terms of the stipulated stay in the Azima Action apply to the Consolidated Derivative Action.

On June 4, 2026, a third derivative action was filed by two purported stockholders against certain current officers and current and former directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Perrow v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-6086 (the “Perrow Action”). The Perrow Action alleges substantially similar facts as those alleged in the Aljendan Action, the Azima Acton, and the Davis Action. The complaint asserts claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. It also asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against a subset of defendants and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the Aljendan Action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only.

On July 2, 2026, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action filed a notice of related case regarding the Perrow Action, which stated that the plaintiffs in the Perrow Action do not object to the consolidation of the Perrow Action into the Consolidated Derivative Action.

The Consolidated Derivative Action and the Perrow Action are at a preliminary stage. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.