15. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Obligations

The Company had outstanding contracts and purchase orders of $193.2 million related to capital projects and services at June 27, 2026. Amounts due under these contracts were not included on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of June 27, 2026.

Guarantees

The Company from time to time enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require it to indemnify various parties against claims from third parties. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) certain real estate leases under which subsidiaries of the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities and other claims arising from their use of the applicable premises; (ii) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors, and employees under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationship; and (iii) customer agreements under which the Company may be required to indemnify customers for certain claims brought against them with respect to the supplied products. Generally, a maximum obligation under these contracts is not explicitly stated. Because the obligated amounts associated with these types of agreements are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been required to make payments under these obligations and, therefore, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets.

Litigation

The Company is engaged in various legal proceedings that have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. The likelihood of loss arising from these legal proceedings, based on definitions within contingency accounting literature, ranges from remote to reasonably possible to probable. When losses are probable and reasonably estimable, they have been accrued. Based on estimates of the range of potential losses associated with these matters, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect upon the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. However, the final results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and, if the Company failed to prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses were to exceed the Company’s current estimates of the range of potential losses, the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations could be materially adversely affected in future periods.

JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. In October 2019, a Multidistrict Litigation action (“MDL”) was initiated in order to centralize litigation against JUUL Labs, Inc. (“JUUL”) and other parties in connection with JUUL’s e-cigarettes and related devices and components in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March

11, 2020, counsel for plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee filed a Master Complaint in the MDL (“Master Complaint”) naming, among several other entities and individuals including JUUL, Altria Group, Inc., Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution Company, Altria Enterprises LLC, certain members of management and/or individual investors in JUUL, various e-liquid manufacturers, and various retailers, including the Company’s subsidiaries Eby-Brown Company LLC (“Eby-Brown”) and Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. (“Core-Mark”), as defendants. The Master Complaint also named additional distributors of JUUL products (collectively with Eby-Brown and Core-Mark, the “Distributor Defendants”). The Master Complaint contains various state law claims and alleges that the Distributor Defendants: (i) failed to disclose JUUL’s nicotine contents or the risks associated; (ii) pushed a product designed for a youth market; (iii) engaged with JUUL in planning and marketing its product in a manner designed to maximize the flow of JUUL products; (iv) met with JUUL management in San Francisco, California to further these business dealings; and (v) received incentives and business development funds for marketing and efficient sales. JUUL and Eby-Brown are parties to a Domestic Wholesale Distribution Agreement dated March 10, 2020 (the “Distribution Agreement”), and JUUL has agreed to defend and indemnify Eby-Brown under the terms of that agreement and is paying Eby-Brown’s outside counsel fees directly. In addition, Core-Mark and JUUL have entered into a Defense and Indemnity Agreement dated March 8, 2021 (the “Defense Agreement”) pursuant to which JUUL has agreed to defend and indemnify Core-Mark, and JUUL is paying Core-Mark’s outside counsel fees directly.

On December 6, 2022, JUUL announced that it had reached settlements with the plaintiffs in the MDL and related cases that had been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California (the “MDL Settlement”). Per the settlement agreement, the MDL Settlement encompasses the various personal injury, consumer class action, government entity, and Native American tribe claims made against JUUL and includes, among others, all of the Distributor Defendants (including Core-Mark and Eby-Brown) as released parties. The release applicable to the Distributor Defendants, as well as certain other defendants, took effect when JUUL made the first settlement payment on October 27, 2023. The MDL Settlement Master informed the parties that there are ten plaintiffs who opted out of the MDL Settlement; however, those opt-out plaintiffs have amended their individual complaints and have removed Eby-Brown and Core-Mark as defendants in their individual cases.

On September 10, 2021, Michael Lumpkins filed a parallel lawsuit in Illinois state court against several entities, including JUUL, e-liquid manufacturers, various retailers, and various distributors, including Eby-Brown and Core-Mark, alleging similar claims to the claims at issue in the MDL (the “Illinois Litigation”). Because there was no federal jurisdiction for this case, it proceeded in Illinois state court. Plaintiff alleged as damages that his use of JUUL products caused a brain injury that was later exacerbated by medical negligence. The court denied Eby-Brown and Core-Mark’s motion to dismiss, and the case moved into the discovery phase. On October 20, 2025, the court entered a stipulated order of dismissal without prejudice as to various defendants, including Eby-Brown and Core-Mark. Following the order of dismissal, the Company considers the Illinois Litigation to be resolved. In the event the Plaintiff attempts to refile the Illinois Litigation against Eby-Brown or Core-Mark, the defense and indemnity of Eby-Brown and Core-Mark for the Illinois Litigation would be covered by the Distribution Agreement and the Defense Agreement, respectively.

Tax Liabilities

The Company is subject to customary audits by authorities in the jurisdictions where it conducts business in the United States and foreign countries, which may result in assessments of additional taxes. These additional taxes are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable.

Tariffs and Trade Regulations

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). Because we are not the importer of record for most products we distribute, our direct exposure to potential tariff refunds is limited. The timing and amount of future recovery of tariffs previously paid under IEEPA by our suppliers and passed through to the Company are uncertain and, therefore, we are unable to estimate the financial effects of potential tariff refunds, if any, at this time.