Company: CELH
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001341766-25-000104
Chunk: 114

Company: Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 8
Chunk 114
---
 enrichment, (iii) abuse of control, and (iv) waste of corporate assets. The fourth of these derivative actions was filed on February 11, 2025, also in District Court, Clark County, Nevada, by purported stockholder David Murphy (the “Murphy Derivative Action”). The complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, and (ii) unjust enrichment. The fifth of these derivative actions was filed on March 31, 2025, also in District Court, Clark County, Nevada, by purported stockholder Suzanne Flannery (the “Flannery Derivative Action,” together with Sunny Derivative Action and Murphy Derivative Action, the “State Court Derivative Actions”). The complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, and (ii) unjust enrichment. The State Court Derivative Actions were consolidated on June 9, 2025, and the parties have until August 8, 2025, to submit a proposed schedule.The Company believes that the claims asserted in the foregoing putative securities class actions and derivative actions are without merit and that the likelihood of loss is remote. However, the ultimate outcome of these actions may differ materially from the Company’s current expectations, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of losses at this time. The Company will vigorously defend itself and its current and former executive officers and directors.California Consumer Class Action On January 22, 2025, the Company and certain individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all Celsius purchasers, that plaintiff and other class members were misled regarding the alleged financial relationship between Celsius and the individual defendants, who allegedly promoted the Company’s products on social media. The complaint asserts claims for (i) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, (ii) unjust enrichment, and (iii) negligent misrepresentation. On May 12, 2025, a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, transfer, was filed on behalf of all defendants. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief was filed on July 11, 2025, and the reply brief was filed on July 25, 2025.The Company believes that the claims asserted in this putative class action are without merit and that the likelihood of loss is remote. However, the ultimate outcome of these actions may differ materially from the Company’s