Mission Produce, Inc.AVO
Mission Produce, Inc. Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation
We are from time to time involved in legal proceedings and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business, including those relating to employment matters, relationships with clients and contractors, intellectual property disputes and other business matters.
On April 23, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against us alleging violation of certain wage and labor laws in California, including failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wage violations, and meal and rest period violations, among others. Additionally, on June 10, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura against us alleging similar violations of certain wage and labor laws. The plaintiffs in both cases sought damages primarily consisting of class certification and payment of wages earned and owed, plus other consequential and special damages. While the Company believes that it did not violate any wage or labor laws, in May 2021, the plaintiffs in both class action lawsuits and the Company agreed to settle the class action cases. Per the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties, the total amount of the settlement is $1.5 million. The Court granted Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement on June 10, 2024 and dismissed the action with prejudice on June 13, 2025.
On October 21, 2024, a former temporary worker placed at the Company’s California packinghouse by a labor contractor utilized by the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura County against us alleging violations of certain wage and hour laws. Plaintiff seeks damages primarily consisting of class certification, payment of wages earned and owed, liquidated damages, penalties and fees, and injunctive relief. A related lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) was also filed on December 16, 2024. On July 30, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the class action lawsuit and to submit the PAGA matter to mediation. Mediation is currently scheduled for February 2026. At this time, it is too soon to determine the outcome of the litigation. As a result, the Company has not accrued for any loss contingencies related to these claims because the amount and range of loss, if any, cannot currently be reasonably estimated.
On November 6, 2024, the Organics Consumers Association filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging the Company engaged in false and deceptive advertising in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection and Procedures Act by making representations about sustainable sourcing practice in connection with its sale of avocados (“OCA matter”). Plaintiff seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief. On February 21, 2025, the same lawyers that represent the Organic Consumers Association filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Kachuk Enterprises, Bantle Avocado Farm, Maskell Family Trust, and Northern Capital, Inc., owners and operators of avocado orchards located in California, against the Company and certain other avocado distributors (“Kachuk matter”). The lawsuit alleges violations of California’s False Advertising Law, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment related to defendants’ alleged representations to consumers that their avocados are sustainably and responsibly sourced. Plaintiffs primarily seek injunctive relief, monetary and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, and restitution. On the OCA matter, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 25, 2025. The Court denied our motion to dismiss and allowed limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. The Company renewed its motion to dismiss on September 22, 2025, and the plaintiffs have filed a motion to stay the deadline to respond to the Company’s renewed motion to
dismiss. The parties are concurrently working through discovery. On the Kachuk matter, defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss on May 2, 2025. The Court granted defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, but allowed Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, which they did on October 24, 2025. Defendants thereafter jointly filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on November 21, 2025. Plaintiff’s opposition is due December 19, 2025. The Company is vigorously defending against the claims asserted in both these lawsuits. At this time, it is too soon to determine the outcome of these lawsuits. As a result, the Company has not accrued for any loss contingencies related to these matters because the amount and range of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.
On March 27, 2025, a fatality accident occurred at our Laredo, Texas distribution center. A complaint was filed by the decedent’s estate alleging various causes of action relating to alleged negligence. Plaintiff seeks survival damages, wrongful death damages, punitive damages, and other fees and costs. The Company has tendered the matter to insurance and is being represented by counsel appointed by the insurance company. The Plaintiff has submitted a Stowers demand to the insurance companies, and a response is due on December 31, 2025. The Company is vigorously defending against these claims. At this time, it is too soon to determine the outcome of the litigation. As a result, the Company has not accrued for any loss contingencies related to these claims because the amount and range of loss, if any, cannot currently be reasonably estimated.
The outcomes of our legal proceedings and other contingencies are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and if one or more legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts above management’s expectations, the Company’s financial condition and operating results for that period could be materially adversely affected.Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Dec 18, 2025 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Dec 19, 2024 | |
| 2023 | Dec 21, 2023 | |
| 2022 | Dec 22, 2022 | |
| 2021 | Dec 22, 2021 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.