Monster Beverage 10-K 2014-12-31

10-K 1 a14-25746_110k.htm 10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

(Mark One)

[ X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014

OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _____ to _____

Commission File Number 0-18761

MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

1 Monster Way

Corona, California 92879

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (951) 739 - 6200

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yesþ Noo

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yeso Noþ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þNo o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.) Yes o No þ

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by nonaffiliates of the registrant was $10,745,367,329 computed by reference to the closing sale price for such stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on June 30, 2014, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.005 par value per share (being the only class of common stock of the registrant), outstanding on February 17, 2015 was 170,016,322 shares.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement to be filed subsequent to the date hereof with the Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A in connection with the registrant’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report. Such Definitive Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than 120 days after the conclusion of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION

FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Monster Beverage Corporation was incorporated in Delaware on April 25, 1990. Our principal place of business is located at 1 Monster Way, Corona, California 92879 and our telephone number is (951) 739-6200. When this report uses the words “Monster Energy Company”, “Monster”, “Hansen”, “Hansen Natural Corporation”, “Hansen Beverage Company”, “the Company”, “we”, “us”, and “our”, these words refer to Monster Beverage Corporation and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires. We are a holding company and conduct no operating business except through our consolidated subsidiaries.

Acquisitions and Divestitures

On August 14, 2014, the Company and The Coca-Cola Company (“TCCC”) entered into definitive agreements for a long-term strategic relationship in the global energy drink category (the “TCCC Transaction”). As part of the TCCC Transaction, the Company, New Laser Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“NewCo”), New Laser Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of NewCo (“Merger Sub”), TCCC and European Refreshments, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of TCCC, entered into a transaction agreement, and the Company, TCCC and NewCo entered into an asset transfer agreement (together, the “TCCC Transaction Agreements”). Pursuant to the TCCC Transaction Agreements, the Company will reorganize into a new holding company by merging Merger Sub into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of NewCo. In the merger, each outstanding share of the Company’s common stock will be converted into one share of NewCo’s common stock.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the TCCC Transaction Agreements, upon the closing of the TCCC Transaction, (1) NewCo will issue to TCCC newly issued shares of common stock representing approximately 16.7% of the total number of shares of issued and outstanding NewCo common stock (after giving effect to the new issuance) and TCCC will have the right to nominate two individuals (reduced to one upon the earlier of (i) 36 months after the closing of the TCCC Transaction and (ii) TCCC’s equity interest in NewCo exceeding 20% of the outstanding shares of NewCo common stock) to NewCo’s Board of Directors, (2) TCCC will transfer its global energy drink business (including the NOS®, Full Throttle®, Burn®, Mother®, Play® and Power Play® and Relentless® brands) to NewCo, and the Company will transfer its non-energy drink business (including Hansen’s® Natural Sodas, Peace Tea®, Hubert’s® Lemonade and Hansen’s® Juice Products) to TCCC, (3) the Company and TCCC will amend their current distribution coordination agreements, which will contemplate expanding distribution of the Company’s products into additional territories pursuant to long-term distribution agreements with TCCC’s network of owned or controlled bottlers/distributors and independent bottling and distribution partners, and (4) TCCC will make a net cash payment of $2.15 billion to the Company (up to $625.0 million of which will be held in escrow, subject to release upon achievement of milestones relating to the transfer of distribution rights).

The waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the “HSR Act”) with respect to the TCCC Transaction expired on October 15, 2014, and all necessary approvals or consents from foreign antitrust authorities have been obtained. The closing of the transaction is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the second quarter of 2015.

Overview

We develop, market, sell and distribute “alternative” beverage category beverages primarily under the following brand names:

Our Monster Energy® brand energy drinks, which represented 93.3%, 92.5% and 92.3% of our net sales for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, primarily include the following:

Industry Overview

The “alternative” beverage category combines non-carbonated ready-to-drink iced teas, lemonades, juice cocktails, single-serve juices and fruit beverages, ready-to-drink dairy and coffee drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks, and single-serve still water (flavored, unflavored and enhanced) with “new age” beverages, including sodas that are considered natural, sparkling juices and flavored sparkling beverages. According to Beverage Marketing Corporation, domestic U.S. wholesale sales in 2014 for the “alternative” beverage category of the market are estimated at approximately $38.8 billion, representing an increase of approximately 5.1% over the estimated domestic U.S. wholesale sales in 2013 of approximately $36.9 billion (revised from a previously reported estimate of $37.7 billion).

Corporate History

In the 1930s, Hubert Hansen and his sons started a business to sell fresh non-pasteurized juices in Los Angeles, California. This business eventually became Hansen’s Juices, Inc., which subsequently became known as The Fresh Juice Company of California, Inc. (“FJC”). FJC retained the right to market and sell fresh non-pasteurized juices under the Hansen’s trademark. In 1977, Tim Hansen, one of the grandsons of Hubert Hansen, perceived a demand for shelf stable pasteurized natural juices and juice blends and formed Hansen Foods, Inc. (“HFI”). HFI expanded its product line from juices to include

Hansen’s Natural Soda® brand sodas. In 1990, California Co-Packers Corporation (d/b/a Hansen Beverage Company) (“CCC”) acquired certain assets of HFI, including the right to market the Hansen’s® brand name. In 1992, we acquired the Hansen’s® brand natural soda and apple juice business from CCC. Under our ownership, the Hansen beverage business has significantly expanded and includes a wide range of beverages within the growing “alternative” beverage category including, in particular, energy drinks. In 1999, we acquired all of FJC’s rights to manufacture, sell and distribute fresh non-pasteurized juice products under the Hansen’s® trademark together with certain additional rights. In 2012, we changed our name from Hansen Natural Corporation to Monster Beverage Corporation.

Reportable Segments

We have two operating and reportable segments, namely Direct Store Delivery (“DSD”), the principal products of which comprise energy drinks, and Warehouse (“Warehouse”), the principal products of which comprise juic

Showing the first 8K of 65K characters. Open the full section

In addition to the other information in this report, you should carefully consider the following risks. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and/or operating results could be materially adversely affected. The risk factors summarized below are not the only risks we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and/or operating results.

Following the TCCC Transaction, NewCo and TCCC will have extensive commercial arrangements and, as a result, NewCo’s future performance is expected to substantially depend on the success of its relationship with TCCC.

In connection with the TCCC Transaction, the amended distribution coordination agreements to be entered into with TCCC will provide for the transition of third parties’ rights to distribute the Company’s products in most territories in the U.S. to members of TCCC’s distribution network, which consists of owned or controlled bottlers/distributors and independent bottling/distribution partners. On February 9, 2015 in accordance with its existing agreements with the applicable third-party distributors, the Company sent notices of termination to certain affected third-party distributors, including the majority of the AB Distributors in the U.S., providing for the termination of their respective distribution agreements, to be effective at various dates beginning in March 2015. The associated distribution rights will be transferred to TCCC’s distribution network in each applicable territory as of the effective date of the termination of the applicable third party’s rights in such territory. In addition, it is expected that TCCC will become our preferred distribution partner globally. As a result, we will be reducing our distributor diversification and will be substantially dependent on TCCC’s international distribution platform.

Also in connection with the TCCC Transaction, TCCC will make a substantial equity investment in NewCo and has agreed, subject to certain exceptions, not to compete in the energy drink category. While we believe that this will incentivize TCCC to take steps to assure that our products receive the appropriate attention in the TCCC distribution system, there can be no assurance of this as TCCC is a much larger company with many strategic priorities. In addition, TCCC does not control all members of its distribution system, many of which are independent companies that make their own business decisions that may not always align with TCCC’s interests. Moreover, it is also possible that we may fail to recognize the expected benefits of the new distribution arrangements regardless of TCCC’s priorities or the priorities of the members of TCCC’s distribution system. In any such case, our operating results could suffer and the value of NewCo’s common shares could be adversely affected.

Under the terms of the TCCC Transaction, we have agreed, subject to certain exceptions, not to compete with TCCC in the non-energy drink category following the closing. As a result, our sole focus will be in the energy drink category and our business will become more vulnerable to adverse changes impacting the energy drink category and business, which could adversely impact our business and the trading price of our common stock.

The failure to transition the distribution of our products to TCCC’s distribution network in a timely manner could reduce and/or delay the expected benefits of the TCCC Transaction.

If the expected transition of the U.S. distribution rights to TCCC’s distribution network described above is not completed in a full, timely and/or efficient manner, the expected benefits of the new distribution arrangements could be reduced and/or delayed. In this regard, we have been informed that approximately 64 AB Distributors are challenging our right to terminate their distribution agreements in accordance with the express terms of such distribution agreements. We have filed separate arbitration demands against each of these parties seeking declarations of our rights, including our right to terminate the applicable distribution agreements in accordance with their terms. We have also filed an action in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against these parties to enforce each of their respective obligations to arbitrate any disputes arising under such distribution agreements. We believe the independent distributors’ allegations are without merit.

We expect to incur costs associated with transition of distribution which we currently estimate at $280.0 million. The final amount of those costs could be different and such differences could be material. In addition, under the TCCC Transaction Agreements, up to $625.0 million of the net $2.15 billion cash payment to be paid to us by TCCC will be held in escrow, subject to release upon achievement of milestones relating to the transition of distribution rights to TCCC’s distribution network. A failure to meet those milestones would result in a decrease in, and/or delay of, the cash payment.

Following the TCCC Transaction, TCCC will be a significant shareholder of NewCo and may have interests that are different from NewCo’s other shareholders (including current shareholders of the Company).

In connection with the TCCC Transaction, each outstanding share of the Company’s common stock will be converted into one share of NewCo’s common stock. Immediately following the consummation of the TCCC Transaction, TCCC will own NewCo common shares representing approximately 16.7% of the total number of NewCo’s outstanding common shares. TCCC will also have the right to nominate two directors to the NewCo board of directors, subject to reduction in certain circumstances.

Following the completion of the TCCC Transaction, TCCC’s ownership could also have an effect on NewCo’s ability to engage in a change in control transaction. TCCC will be obligated for a period of time to vote all of its NewCo common shares in excess of 20% of the outstanding NewCo common shares in the same proportion as all NewCo common shares not owned by TCCC with respect to a proposal for a NewCo change of control. However, if TCCC were to oppose such a change in control transaction, a bidder would be required to secure the support of holders of 62.5% of NewCo’s common shares not owned by TCCC (assuming that TCCC increased its ownership from approximately 16.7% to 20% of NewCo’s common shares) to achieve a vote of a majority of NewCo’s outstanding shares for a change-in-control transaction. In addition, assuming the completion of the TCCC Transaction, TCCC would have a bidding advantage if the NewCo board of directors were to seek to sell NewCo in the future because TCCC would not need to pay a control premium on the shares it owns at such time, including the shares it acquires in the TCCC Transaction. TCCC and NewCo would also be permitted to terminate TCCC’s distribution coordination agreements with NewCo after a change in control of NewCo. In such event, TCCC would receive a termination fee if TCCC terminated the distribution coordination agreements following a change in control of NewCo involving certain TCCC competitors, or if NewCo terminated following a change in control of NewCo, involving any third party.

The interests of TCCC may be different from or conflict with the interests of NewCo’s other shareholders (including current shareholders of the Company, who will receive NewCo common shares in the TCCC Transaction) and, as a result, TCCC’s influence may result in the delay or prevention of potential actions or transactions, including a potential change of management or control of NewCo, even if such action or transaction may be beneficial to NewCo’s other shareholders. Moreover, TCCC’s ownership of a significant amount of NewCo’s outstanding common shares could result in downward pressure on the trading price of NewCo’s common shares if TCCC were to sell a large portion of its shares or as a result of the perception that such a sale might occur.

The TCCC Transaction may not be completed or may be delayed, and even if the TCCC Transaction is successfully completed, the anticipated benefits to the Company’s stockholders may not be realized.

The completion of the TCCC Transaction is subject to certain customary conditions. The Company or TCCC may be unable to satisfy the conditions required to complete the transaction, and there is no assurance that the TCCC Transaction will be completed on a timely basis or at all. If the TCCC Transaction is not completed, we will nonetheless bear significant transaction costs. In addition, the current market price of our stock may reflect an assumption that the TCCC Transaction will occur, and failure to complete the TCCC Transaction could result in a decline in our stock price. The failure of the TCCC Transaction to be completed may also result in negative publicity and/or a negative impression of the Company in the investment community and may affect our relationship with customers and other partners.

Changes in government regulation, or failure to comply with existing regulations, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Legislation has been proposed and/or adopted at the U.S. federal, state and/or municipal level and proposed and/or adopted in certain foreign jurisdictions to restrict the sale of energy drinks (including prohibiting the sale of energy drinks at certain establishments or pursuant to certain governmental programs), limit caffeine content in beverages, require certain product labeling disclosures and/or warnings, impose excise taxes, limit product size, or impose age restrictions for the sale of energy drinks. For a discussion of certain of such legislation, see “Part I, Item 1 — Business — Government Regulation.” Furthermore, additional legislation may be introduced in the United States and other countries at the federal, state, local and municipal level in respect of each of the foregoing subject areas. Public health officials and health advocates are increasingly focused on the public health consequences associated with obesity, especially as the disease affects children, and are seeking legislative change to reduce the consumption of sweetened beverages. There also has been an increased focus on caffeine content in beverages. To the extent any such legislation is enacted in one or more jurisdictions where a significant amount of our products are sold individually or in the aggregate, it could result in a reduction in demand for or availability of our energy drinks and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The production, distribution and sale in the United States of many of our products are also currently subject to various federal and state regulations, including, but not limited to: the FFDC Act, including as amended by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; various environmental statutes; and various other federal, state and local statutes and regulations applicable to the production, transportation, sale, safety, advertising, labeling and ingredients of such products. Outside the United States, the production, distribution and sale of many of our products are also subject to numerous statutes and regulations. If a regulatory authority finds that a current or future product or production run is not in compliance with any of these regulations, we may be fined, or such products may have to be recalled and/or reformulated and/or have the packaging changed, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We cannot predict the effect of inquiries from and/or actions by attorneys general and/or other government agencies and/or quasi-government agencies into the advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and/or sale of our energy drink products.

We are subject to the risks of investigations and/or enforcement actions by state attorneys general and/or other government and/or quasi-governmental agencies relating to the advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and/or sale of our energy drinks. In July 2012, we received a subpoena from a state attorney general in connection with an investigation relating to the advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of our Monster Energy® brand energy drinks. We cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry and what, if any, effect it may have on our business, financial condition or results of operations. If an inquiry by a state attorney general or other government or quasi-government agency finds that our products and/or the advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and/or sale of such products are not in compliance with applicable laws or regulations, we may become subject to fines, product reformulations, container changes, changes in the usage or sale of our energy drink products and/or changes in our advertising, marketing and promotion practices, each of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Litigation regarding our products, and related unfavorable media attention, could expose us to significant liabilities and reduce demand for our products.

In 2012, we were named as a defendant in a product liability lawsuit, which alleged that the consumption of two 24-ounce cans of Monster Energy® over the course of two days, caused the wrongful death of a fourteen year old girl (Anais Fournier) in December 2011. We do not believe that our products are responsible for the death of Ms. Fournier and intend to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit. In addition, additional product liability lawsuits have since been filed against us, containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier lawsuit, each of which we believe is also without merit and would not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations in the event any damages were awarded.

In October 2012, we received a written request for information from the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco (the “City Attorney”) concerning our advertising and marketing of our Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks and specifically concerning the safety of our products for consumption by adolescents. In a subsequent letter, the City Attorney threatened to bring suit against us if we did not agree to take certain steps immediately and, on May 6, 2013, the City Attorney filed a complaint against us for declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for an alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. We deny that we have violated the Unfair Competition Law or any other law and believe that the City Attorney’s claims and demands are preempted and unconstitutional. We intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. At this time, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss can be expressed.

Several other lawsuits have been filed against us claiming that certain statements made in our advertisements and/or on the labels of our products were false and/or misleading in nature and/or that our products are not safe. Putative class action lawsuits have also recently been filed against certain of our competitors asserting that certain claims in their advertisements amount to false advertising. We do not believe any statements made by us in our promotional materials or set forth on our product labels are false or misleading or that our products are in any way unsafe and intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Any of the foregoing matters or other product-related litigation, the threat thereof, or unfavorable media attention arising from pending or threatened product-related litigation, could consume significant financial and managerial resources, and result in decreased demand for our products, significant monetary awards against us and injury to our reputation.

Criticism of our energy drink products, and/or criticism or a negative perception of energy drinks generally, could adversely affect us.

An unfavorable report on the health effects of caffeine, or criticism or negative publicity regarding the caffeine content in our products or energy drinks generally, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Articles critical of the caffeine content in energy drinks and/or indicating certain health risks of energy drinks have been published in recent years. We believe the overall growth of the energy drink market in the U.S. may have been negatively impacted by the ongoing negative publicity and comments that continue to appear in the media questioning the safety of energy drinks, and suggesting limitations on their ingredients (including caffeine) and/or the levels thereof and/or imposing minimum age restrictions for consumers. If reports, studies or articles critical of caffeine and/or energy drinks continue to be published or are published in the future, they could adversely affect the demand for our products.

Increased competition could hurt our business.

The beverage industry is highly competitive. The principal areas of competition are pricing, packaging, development of new products, flavors, product positioning as well as promotion and marketing strategies. Our products compete with a wide range of drinks produced by a relatively large number of manufacturers, some of which have substantially greater financial, marketing and distribution resources than we do.

Important factors affecting our ability to compete successfully include the taste and flavor of our products, trade and consumer promotions, rapid and effective development of new, unique cutting edge products, attractive and different packaging, branded product advertising and pricing. Our products compete with all liquid refreshments and in some cases with products of much larger and substantially better financed competitors, including the products of numerous nationally and internationally known producers such as TCCC, PepsiCo, Red Bull Gmbh, the DPS Group, Kraft Foods Inc., Suntory Holdings, Ltd., Nestle Beverage Company, Tree Top and Ocean Spray. We also compete with companies that are smaller or primarily national or local in operations. Our products also compete with private label brands such as those carried by grocery store chains, convenience store chains, and club stores.

There can be no assurance that we will not encounter difficulties in maintaining our current revenues or market share or position due to competition in the beverage industry. If our revenues decline, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Uncertainty in the financial markets and other adverse changes in general economic or political conditions in any of the major countries in which we do business could adversely affect our industry, business and results of operations.

Global economic uncertainties affect businesses such as ours in a number of ways, making it difficult to accurately forecast and plan our future business activities. There can be no assurance that economic improvements will occur, or that they would be sustainable, or that they would enhance conditions in markets relevant to us. In addition, we cannot predict the duration and severity of disruptions in any of our markets, or the impact they may have on our customers or business, as our expansion outside of the United States has increased our exposure to any developments or crisis in European and other international markets. If economic conditions deteriorate, our industry, business and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Changes in consumer preferences may reduce demand for some of our products.

The beverage industry is subject to changing consumer preferences and shifts in consumer preferences may adversely affect us. There is increasing awareness of and concern for the health consequences of obesity. This may reduce demand for our non-diet beverages, which could reduce our revenues and adversely affect our results of operations. Recently, concerns have emerged regarding diet sodas and in particular, aspartame, which we do not use in our beverages.

Consumers are seeking greater variety in their beverages. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our continued ability to develop and introduce different and innovative beverages that appeal to consumers. In order to retain and expand our market share, we must continue to develop and introduce different and innovative beverages and be competitive in the areas of taste, quality and health, although there can be no assurance of our ability to do so. There is no assurance that consumers will continue to purchase our products in the future. Product lifecycles for some beverage brands and/or products and/or packages may be limited to a few years before consumers’ preferences change. The beverages we currently market are in varying stages of their product lifecycles and there can be no assurance that such beverages will become or remain profitable for us. We may be unable to achieve volume growth through product and packaging initiatives. We may also be unable to penetrate new markets. If our revenues decline, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Operations outside the United States expose us to uncertain conditions and other risks in international markets.

Our gross sales to customers outside of the United States were approximately 23%, 23% and 22% of consolidated gross sales for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and our growth strategy includes further expanding our international business. If we are unable to continue to expand distribution of our products outside the United States, our growth rate could be adversely affected. In many international markets, we have limited operating experience and in some areas we have no operating experience. It is costly to establish, develop and maintain international operations and develop and promote our brands in international markets. Our percentage gross profit margins in many international markets are expected to be less than the comparable percentage gross profit margins obtained in the U.S. We face and will continue to face substantial risks associated with having foreign operations, including: economic and/or political instability in our international markets; restrictions on or costs relating to the repatriation of foreign profits to the United States, including possible taxes and/or withholding obligations on any repatriations; and tariffs and/or trade restrictions. These risks could have a significant impact on our ability to sell our products on a competitive basis in international markets and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Also, our operations outside of the United States are subject to risks relating to appropriate compliance with legal and regulatory requirements in local jurisdictions, potential difficulties in staffing and managing local operations, higher product damages, particularly when products are shipped long distances, potentially higher incidence of fraud and/or corruption, credit risk of local customers and distributors and potentially adverse tax consequences.

Global or regional catastrophic events could impact our operations and affect our ability to grow our business.

Because of our increasingly global presence, our business could be affected by unstable political conditions, civil unrest, large-scale terrorist acts, especially those directed against the United States or other major industrialized countries where our products are distributed, the outbreak or escalation of armed hostilities, major natural disasters or widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases. Such events could impact the production and distribution of our products. In addition, such events could disrupt global or regional economic activity, which could affect consumer purchasing power, thereby reducing demand for our products. If we are unable to grow our business internationally as a result of these factors, our growth rate could decline.

Fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates may adversely affect our operating results.

We are exposed to foreign currency exchange rate risk with respect to our sales, expenses, profits, assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. We enter into forward currency exchange contracts with financial institutions to create an economic hedge to specifically manage a portion of the foreign exchange risk exposure associated with certain consolidated subsidiaries’ non-functional currency denominated assets and liabilities. We have not used instruments to hedge against all foreign currency risks and are therefore not protected against all foreign currency fluctuations. As a result, our reported earnings may be affected by changes in foreign currency exchange rates. Moreover, any favorable impacts to profit margins or financial results from fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates are likely to be unsustainable over time.

We derive a substantial portion of revenues from our energy drinks and competitive pressure in the energy drink category could adversely affect our business and operating results.

A substantial portion of our sales are derived from our energy drinks, including in particular our Monster Energy® brand energy drinks. Our DSD segment, which is comprised primarily of energy drinks, represented 96.1% of net sales for the year ended December 31, 2014. Any decrease in the sales of our Monster Energy® brand and other energy drinks could significantly adversely affect our future revenues and net income. Historically, we have experienced substantial competition from new entrants in the energy drink category as well as from the energy shot category. Domestically, our energy drinks compete directly with Red Bull, Rockstar, Full Throttle, No Fear, Amp, Adrenaline Rush, NOS, Venom, Redline, Red Devil, Xenergy, MiO Energy, Rip It, Starbucks Double Shot, Starbucks Double Shot Energy Plus Coffee, Rockstar Roasted, 5-Hour Energy Shots, Stacker 2, VPX Redline Energy Shots and many other brands. A number of companies who market and distribute iced teas, juice cocktails and enhanced waters in different packages, such as 16- and 20-ounce glass and plastic bottles, including Sobe, Sobe Life Water, Snapple, Arizona, Fuse, Ocean Spray, Honest Tea, Gold Peak Tea, Activate, Neuro and Vitamin Water, have added dietary ingredients to their products with a view to marketing their products as “functional” or energy beverages or as having “functional” benefits. In addition, certain large companies such as TCCC and PepsiCo, market and/or distribute products in that market segment such as Pepsi Max, Mountain Dew, Mountain Dew MDX, Mountain Dew Kickstart and Vault. Internationally, our energy drinks compete with Red Bull, Rockstar, Burn, V-Energy, Lucozade, Adrenaline Rush, Relentless and numerous local and private label brands that usually differ from country to country, such as Play, Power Play, Mother, Hell, Shock, Tiger, Boost, Speed, TNT, Shark, Hot 6, Shark Energy, Nalu, Battery, Bullit, Flash Up, Black, Non-Stop, Bomba, Semtex, Vive 100, Dark Dog, Speed, Guaraná, Ultra, Sting and a host of other international brands. Our Java Monster® product line competes directly with Starbucks Frappuccino, Starbucks Double Shot, Starbucks Double Shot Energy Plus Coffee and other Starbucks coffee drinks, Rockstar Roasted, Seattle’s Best and illy issimo coffee drinks. Our Muscle Monster® product line competes directly with Muscle Milk, Core Power, ABB Pure Pro and Gatorade Recover Protein Shake. Competitive pressures in the energy drink category could impact our revenues and/or we could experience price erosion and/or lower market share, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We rely on bottlers and other contract packers to manufacture our products. If we are unable to maintain good relationships with our bottlers and contract packers and/or their ability to manufacture our products becomes constrained or unavailable to us, our business could suffer.

We do not directly manufacture our products, but instead outsource such manufacturing to bottlers and other contract packers. In the event of a disruption and/or delay, we may be unable to procure alternative packing facilities at commercially reasonable rates and/or within a reasonably short time period. In addition, there are limited alternative packing facilities in our domestic and international markets with adequate capacity and/or suitable equipment for many of our products, including our Monster Energy® brand energy drinks, our Peace Tea® product line, our Hansen’s® brand energy drinks, our aseptic juice products, our Hubert’s® Lemonades, our Muscle Monster® product line, our Java Monster® product line and certain of our other products. While we believe a short-term disruption or delay in production would not significantly affect our revenue, a lengthy disruption or delay in the production of any of such products could significantly adversely affect our revenues from such products because alternative co-packing facilities in the United States and abroad with adequate long-term capacity may not be available for such products either at commercially reasonable rates, and/or within a reasonably short time period, if at all.

We rely on bottlers and distributors to distribute our DSD segment products. If we are unable to maintain good relationships with our existing bottlers and distributors and/or secure such bottlers and distributors, our business could suffer.

Many of our bottlers and distributors are affiliated with and manufacture and/or distribute other soda, carbonated and non-carbonated brands and other beverage products (both alcoholic and non-alcoholic), including energy drinks. In many cases, such products compete directly with our products.

The TCCC North American Bottlers, New CCE, Coca-Cola Hellenic and the AB Distributors are our primary domestic and international distributors of our Monster Energy® products. However, in February 2015, in accordance with its existing agreements with the applicable third-party distributors, the Company sent notices of termination to the majority of the AB Distributors in the U.S. for the termination of their respective distribution agreements, to be effective at various dates beginning in March 2015. The associated distribution rights will be transitioned to TCCC’s network of owned or controlled bottlers/distributors and independent bottling and distribution partners as of the effective date of termination of the AB Distributors’ rights in the applicable territories (see Note 8 “Distribution Agreements” in the notes to consolidated financial statements). As a result, if we are unable to maintain good relationships with the TCCC North American Bottlers and/or New CCE and/or Coca-Cola Hellenic, or if the TCCC North American Bottlers and/or New CCE and/or Coca-Cola Hellenic do not effectively focus on marketing, promoting, selling and distributing our products, sales of our Monster Energy® products could be adversely affected.

We continually seek to expand and/or improve the distribution of our products by entering into agreements with regional bottlers and/or other direct store delivery distributors having established sales, marketing and distribution organizations.

The marketing efforts of our distributors are important for our success. If our DSD segment brands prove to be less attractive to our existing bottlers and distributors and/or if we fail to attract additional bottlers and distributors, and/or our bottlers and/or distributors do not market, promote and distribute our products effectively, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We rely upon our ongoing relationships with our key flavor suppliers. If we are unable to source our flavors on acceptable terms from our key suppliers, we could suffer disruptions in our business.

Generally, flavor suppliers hold the proprietary rights to their flavors. Consequently, we do not have the list of flavor ingredients or formulae for our flavors and certain of our concentrates readily available to us and we may be unable to obtain comparable flavors or concentrates from alternative suppliers on short notice. If we must replace a flavor supplier, we could experience a temporary disruption in our ability to deliver products to our customers and/or a reduction in demand for our products containing replacement flavors, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our customers are material to our success. If we are unable to maintain good relationships with our existing customers, our business could suffer.

Unilateral decisions could be taken by our distributors, convenience chains, grocery chains, specialty chain stores, club stores and other customers to discontinue carrying all or any of our products that they are carrying at any time, which could cause our business to suffer.

CCR accounted for approximately 29% of our net sales for both the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013. A decision by CCR, CCRC, New CCE, Wal-Mart, Inc. (including Sam’s Club), Coca-Cola Hellenic, or any other large customer to decrease the amount purchased from us or to cease carrying our products could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and consolidated results of operations.

Increases in costs and/or shortages of raw materials and/or ingredients and/or fuel and/or costs of co-packing could harm our business.

The principal raw materials used by us are aluminum cans, PET plastic bottles, as well as flavors, juice concentrates, sugar, sucralose, milk, cream, protein, dietary ingredients and other packaging materials; the costs and availability of which are subject to fluctuations. In addition, certain of our co-pack arrangements allow such co-packers to increase their charges based on certain of their own cost increases. We are uncertain whether the prices of any of the above or any other raw materials or ingredients, certain of which have recently risen, will continue to rise or may rise in the future. We are unsure whether we will be able to pass any of such increases on to our customers. We generally do not use hedging agreements or alternative instruments to manage the risks associated with securing sufficient ingredients or raw materials although we do, from time to time, enter into purchase agreements for a significant portion of our annual anticipated requirements for certain raw materials such as aluminum cans, apple juice, sugar and sucralose.

In addition, some of these raw materials, including certain sizes of cans, are available from a limited number of suppliers.

Our failure to accurately estimate demand for our products could adversely affect our business and financial results.

We may not correctly estimate demand for our products. Our ability to estimate demand for our products is imprecise, particularly with regard to new products, and may be less precise during periods of rapid growth, particularly in new markets. If we materially underestimate demand for our products or are unable to secure sufficient ingredients or raw materials including, but not limited to, aluminum cans, PET plastic bottles, glass bottles, labels, sucralose, flavors, dietary ingredients, juice concentrates, certain sweeteners, coffee, tea, protein, packaging materials or co-packing arrangements, we might not be able to satisfy demand on a short-term basis. Moreover, industry-wide shortages of certain juice concentrates, dietary ingredients and sweeteners have been and could, from time to time in the future, be experienced. We generally do not use hedging agreements or alternative instruments to manage this risk. Such shortages could interfere with and/or delay production of certain of our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

If we do not maintain sufficient inventory levels and/or if we are unable to deliver our products to our customers in sufficient quantities, and/or if our customers’ or retailers’ inventory levels are too high, our operating results could be adversely affected.

If we do not accurately anticipate the future demand for a particular product or the time it will take to obtain new inventory, our inventory levels may be inadequate and our results of operations may be negatively impacted. If we fail to meet our shipping schedules, we could damage our relationships with distributors and/or retailers, increase our distribution costs and/or cause sales opportunities to be delayed or lost. In order to be able to deliver our products on a timely basis, we need to maintain adequate inventory levels of the desired products. If the inventory of our products held by our distributors and/or retailers is too high, they will not place orders for additional products, which could unfavorably impact our future sales and adversely affect our operating results.

The costs of packaging supplies are subject to price increases from time to time and we may be unable to pass all or some of such increased costs on to our customers.

Many of our packaging supply contracts allow our suppliers to alter the costs they charge us for packaging supplies based on changes in the costs of the underlying commodities that are used to produce those packaging supplies, such as aluminum for cans, resin for PET plastic bottles, and pulp and paper for cartons and/or trays. These changes in the prices we pay for our packaging supplies occur at certain predetermined times that vary by product and supplier. In some cases, we are able to fix the prices of certain packaging supplies and/or commodities for a reasonable period. In other cases, we bear the risk of increases in the costs of these packaging supplies, including the underlying costs of the commodities that comprise these packaging supplies. We do not use derivative instruments to manage this risk. If the costs of these packaging supplies increase, we may be unable to pass these costs along to our customers through corresponding adjustments to the prices we charge, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our intellectual property rights are critical to our success, and the loss of such rights could materially adversely affect our business.

We own numerous trademarks that are very important to our business. We also own the copyright in and to a portion of the content on the packaging of our products. We regard our trademarks, copyrights, and similar intellectual property as critical to our success and attempt to protect such intellectual property through registration and enforcement actions. However, there can be no assurance that other third parties will not infringe or misappropriate our trademarks, copyrights and similar proprietary rights. If we lose some or all of our intellectual property rights, our business may be materially adversely affected.

If we are unable to maintain our brand image or product quality, our business may suffer.

Our success depends on our ability to build and maintain the brand image for our existing products, new products and brand extensions. There can be no assurance that our advertising, marketing and promotional programs will have the desired impact on our products’ brand image and on consumer preference and demand. Product quality and/or ingredient content issues, efficacy or lack thereof, real or imagined, or allegations of product contamination, even if false or unfounded, could tarnish the image of the affected brands and may cause consumers to choose other products. Furthermore, our brand image or perceived product quality could be adversely affected by litigation, unfavorable reports in the media, internet or elsewhere, studies in general and regulatory or other governmental inquiries, in each case whether involving our products or those of our competitors, as well as proposed or new legislation affecting our industry.

If we encounter product recalls, our business may suffer and we may incur material losses.

We may be required from time to time to recall products entirely or from specific co-packers, markets or batches if such products become contaminated, damaged, mislabeled or otherwise materially not compliant with applicable regulatory requirements. Product recalls could adversely affect our profitability and our brand image. We do not maintain recall insurance.

If we are not able to retain the full-time services of senior management there may be an adverse effect on our operations and/or our operating performance until we find suitable replacements.

Our business is dependent, to a large extent, upon the services of our senior management. We do not maintain key person life insurance on any members of our senior management. The loss of services of either Mr. Sacks, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Schlosberg, President and Chief Financial Officer, or any other key members of our senior management could adversely affect our business until suitable replacements can be found. There may be a limited number of personnel with the requisite skills to serve in these positions and we may be unable to locate or employ such qualified personnel on acceptable terms.

Climate change may negatively affect our business.

There is concern that a gradual increase in global average temperatures could cause significant changes in weather patterns around the globe and an increase in the frequency and severity of natural disasters. While warmer weather has historically been associated with increased sales of our products, changing weather patterns could result in decreased agricultural productivity in certain regions, which may limit availability and/or increase the cost of certain key ingredients, juice concentrates and dietary ingredients used in our products. Increased frequency or duration of extreme weather conditions could

also impair production capabilities, disrupt our supply chain including, without limitation, the availability of, and/or result in higher prices for juice concentrates, natural flavors and dietary ingredients or impact demand for our products. In addition, public expectations for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could result in increased energy, transportation and raw material costs and may require us to make additional investments in facilities and equipment. As a result, the effects of climate change could have a long-term adverse impact on our business and results of operations. Sales of our products may also be influenced to some extent by weather conditions in the markets in which we operate. Weather conditions may influence consumer demand for certain of our beverages, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Potential changes in accounting practices and/or taxation may adversely affect our financial results.

We cannot predict the impact that future changes in accounting standards or practices may have on our financial results. New accounting standards could be issued that change the way we record revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities. These changes in accounting standards could adversely affect our reported earnings. Increases in direct and indirect income tax rates could affect after-tax income. Equally, increases in indirect taxes (including environmental taxes pertaining to the disposal of beverage containers and/or indirect taxes on beverages generally or energy drinks in particular) could affect our products’ affordability and reduce our sales.

Volatility of stock price may restrict sale opportunities.

Our stock price is affected by a number of factors, including stockholder expectations, financial results, the introduction of new products by us and our competitors, general economic and market conditions, estimates and projections by the investment community and public comments by other parties as well as many other factors including litigation, many of which are beyond our control. We do not provide guidance on our future performance, including, but not limited to, our revenues, margins, product mix, operating expenses or net income. We may be unable to achieve analysts’ net revenue and/or earnings forecasts, which are based on their own projected revenues, sales volumes and sales mix of many product types and/or new products, certain of which are more profitable than others, as well as their own estimates of gross margin and operating expenses. There can be no assurance that we will achieve any projected levels or mixes of product sales and/or revenues and/or gross margins and/or operating profits and/or net income. As a result, our stock price is subject to significant volatility and stockholders may not be able to sell our stock at attractive prices. In addition, periods of volatility in the market price of our stock could result in the initiation of securities class action litigation against us. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, our stock price high was $113.50 and our stock price low was $63.00.

Provisions in our organizational documents and control by insiders may prevent changes in control even if such changes would be beneficial to other stockholders.

Our organizational documents may limit changes in control. Furthermore, as of February 17, 2015, Mr. Sacks and Mr. Schlosberg together may be deemed to beneficially own and/or exercise voting control over approximately 12% of our outstanding common stock. Consequently, Mr. Sacks and Mr. Schlosberg could exercise significant control over matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders, including electing directors, amending organizational documents and disapproving extraordinary transactions such as a takeover attempt, even though such actions may be favorable to the other common stockholders.

Our cash flow may not be sufficient to fund our long term goals.

Although we currently have sufficient cash to support our planned operating activities in the current year, we may be unable to generate sufficient cash flow to support our capital expenditure plans and general operating activities in the future. In addition, the terms and/or availability of our credit facility and/or the activities of our debtors and/or creditors could affect the financing of our future growth.

Our investments in marketable securities are subject to risks which may cause losses and affect the liquidity of these investments.

At December 31, 2014, we had $370.3 million in cash and cash equivalents, $781.1 million in short-term investments and $42.9 million of long-term investments. We have historically invested these amounts in U.S. Treasury bills, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, government agencies and municipal securities (which may have an auction reset feature), variable rate demand notes and money market funds meeting certain criteria. Certain of these investments are subject to general credit, liquidity, market and interest rate risks. These risks associated with our investment portfolio may have an adverse effect on our future results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

If we fail to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting on a consolidated basis, our stock price and investor confidence in our Company could be materially and adversely affected.

We are required to maintain both disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting that are effective for the purposes described in “Part II, Item 9A – Controls and Procedures.” If we fail to do so, our business, results of operations, financial condition or the value of our stock could be materially harmed.

Litigation, legal proceedings, government and regulatory inquiries and/or proceedings could expose us to significant liabilities and thus negatively affect our financial results.

We are a party, from time to time, to various litigation claims and legal proceedings, government and regulatory inquiries and/or proceedings, including, but not limited to, intellectual property, fraud, unfair business practices, false advertising, product liability, breach of contract claims, securities actions and shareholder derivative actions. Material legal proceedings are described more fully in “Part I, Item 3 – Legal Proceedings” and in “Part II, Item 8, Note 10” to our consolidated financial statements contained in this Form 10-K.

Defending these proceedings can result in significant ongoing expenditures and the diversion of our management’s time and attention from the operation of our business, which could have a negative effect on our business operations. Our failure to successfully defend or settle any litigation or legal proceedings could result in liabilities that, to the extent not covered by our insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, revenue and profitability, and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

We must continually maintain, protect and/or upgrade our information technology systems.

Information technology helps us operate efficiently, interface with customers, maintain financial accuracy and efficiency, and accurately produce our financial statements. If we do not allocate and effectively manage the resources necessary to build and sustain the proper technology infrastructure, we could be subject to transaction errors, processing inefficiencies, the loss of customers, business disruptions, or the loss of or damage to intellectual property through security breaches, including cybersecurity attacks. Cybersecurity attacks are evolving and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data, and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in systems, unauthorized release of confidential or otherwise protected information and corruption of data. We believe that we have adopted appropriate measures to mitigate potential risks to our technology and our operations from these information technology-related disruptions. However,

given the unpredictability of the timing, nature and scope of such disruptions, we could potentially be subject to operational interruption, damage to our brand image and private data exposure. Moreover, if our data management systems, including our SAP enterprise resource planning system, do not effectively collect, store, process and report relevant data for the operation of our business, whether due to equipment malfunction or constraints, software deficiencies, cybersecurity attack, or human error, our ability to effectively plan, forecast and execute our business plan and comply with applicable laws and regulations will be impaired, perhaps materially. Any such impairment could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and the timeliness with which we report our internal and external operating results.

Not applicable.

Our owned corporate office is located at 1 Monster Way, Corona, California 92879, and consists of an approximately 141,000 square-foot, free standing, six-story building. Our main warehouse and distribution space is located in a leased 346,495 square-foot building in Corona, California. In addition, we lease significantly smaller office and warehouse space both domestically and in certain international locations.

On October 17, 2012, Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, styled Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier v. Monster Beverage Corporation, against the Company claiming that the death of their 14 year old daughter (Anais Fournier) was caused by her consumption of two 24-ounce Monster Energy® drinks over the course of two days in December 2011. The plaintiffs allege strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties and wrongful death. The plaintiffs claim general damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages. The Company filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint on November 19, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on June 7, 2013. The parties attended a court ordered mediation on January 23, 2014. Discovery has commenced and trial has been scheduled for August 21, 2015. The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. The Company also believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in other complaints containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier lawsuit, each of which the Company believes is also without merit and would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in the event any damages were awarded.

Securities Litigation – On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the “Consolidated Class Action Complaint”).

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the “Class Period”). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“AB”) and its sales of “Allied” energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company’s financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the “Amended Class Action Complaint”). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in “channel stuffing” during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company’s reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer named Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.

On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff’s allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on January 17, 2014.

Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on April 16, 2014 to resolve the litigation. Following a fairness hearing, on January 29, 2015, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.

Under the terms of the settlement, certain of the Company’s insurance carriers paid $16.25 million into an escrow account for distribution to a settlement class, certified by the District Court for settlement purposes only and consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during the Class Period (with certain exclusions as specified in the settlement agreement). Under the settlement, defendants and various of their related persons and entities received a full release of all claims that were or could have been brought in the action as well as all claims that arise out of, are based upon or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts, representations, omissions or other matters involved in the complaints filed in the action or any statement communicated to the public during the Class Period, and the purchase, acquisition or sale of the Company’s stock during the Class Period.

The settlement contained no admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues to deny all of the allegations against them and believes that the claims were without merit. Because the full amount of the settlement was paid by the Company’s insurance carriers, the settlement did not have an effect on the Company’s results of operations.

State Attorney General Inquiry – In July 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the Attorney General for the State of New York in connection with its investigation concerning the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks. Production of documents pursuant to that subpoena was completed in approximately May 2014.

On August 6, 2014, the Attorney General for the State of New York issued a second subpoena seeking additional documents and the deposition of a Company employee. On September 8, 2014, the Company moved to quash the second subpoena. The motion has been fully briefed and argument has been scheduled on the motion for March 17, 2015. It is unknown what, if any, action the state attorney general may take against the Company, the relief which may be sought in the event of any such proceeding or whether such proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

San Francisco City Attorney Litigation – On October 31, 2012, the Company received a written request for information from the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco concerning the Company’s advertising and marketing of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks and specifically concerning the safety of its products for consumption by adolescents. In a letter dated March 29, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney threatened to bring suit against the Company if it did not agree to take the following five steps immediately: (i) “Reformulate its products to lower the caffeine content to safe levels”; - (ii) “Provide adequate warning labels”; (iii) “Cease promoting over-consumption in marketing”; (iv) “Cease use of alcohol and drug references in marketing”; and (v) “Cease targeting minors.”

(i) The Company Action – On April 29, 2013, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Monster Energy Company, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the San Francisco City Attorney (the “Company Action”) in United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”), styled Monster Beverage Corp., et al. v. Dennis Herrera. The Company sought a declaration from the Central District Court that the San Francisco City Attorney’s investigation and demands are impermissible and preempted, subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, are unconstitutional in that they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibitions against compelled speech, content-based speech and commercial speech, are impermissibly void-for-vagueness, and/or violate the Commerce Clause. On June 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Company Action, arguing in part that the complaint should be dismissed in light of the San Francisco Action (described below) filed on May 6, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the Central District Court granted in part and denied in part the City Attorney’s motion. On October 17, 2013 (after the San Francisco Action, described below, was remanded to San Francisco Superior Court), the City Attorney filed a renewed motion to dismiss the Company Action and on December 16, 2013, the Central District Court granted the City Attorney’s renewed motion, dismissing the Company Action. The Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on December 18, 2013. The Company filed its opening brief on November 28, 2014. The City Attorney’s filed an answering brief on February 13, 2015, and the Company’s reply brief is currently due on February 27, 2015.

(ii) The San Francisco Action — On May 6, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., styled People Of The State Of California ex rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Monster Beverage Corporation, in San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco Action”). The City Attorney alleges that the Company (1) mislabeled its products as a dietary supplement, in violation of California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, California Health & Safety Code sections 109875 et. seq.; (2) is selling an “adulterated” product because caffeine is not generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) due to the alleged lack of scientific consensus concerning the safety of the levels of caffeine in the Company’s products; and (3) is engaged in unfair and misleading business practices because its marketing (a) does not disclose the health risks that energy drinks pose for children and teens; (b) fails to warn against and promotes unsafe consumption; (c) implicitly promotes mixing of energy drinks with alcohol or drugs; and (d) is deceptive because it includes unsubstantiated claims about the purported special benefits of its “killer” ingredients and “energy blend.” The City Attorney sought a declaration that the Company has engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; an injunction from performing or proposing to perform any acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; restitution; and civil penalties. On June 3, 2013, the Company removed the San Francisco Action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”). On July 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to remand the San Francisco Action back to state court. On September 18, 2013, the Northern District Court granted the City Attorney’s motion to remand the San Francisco Action back to state court.

On January 15, 2014, the Company filed a demurrer to and motion to strike allegations in the complaint in the San Francisco Action. On March 5, 2014, the Court overruled the demurrer, granted the motion to strike as to one theory for relief pleaded by the City Attorney, and lifted the stay on discovery.

On March 20, 2014, the City Attorney filed an amended complaint, adding allegations supporting the theory for relief as to which the Court had granted the motion to strike. On April 18, 2014, the Company filed a renewed motion to strike, challenging the theory for relief previously rejected by the Court, as well as a motion asking the Court to bifurcate and/or stay claims relating to the safety of Monster Energy® drinks, pending resolution of the ongoing FDA investigation of the safety and labeling of food products to which caffeine is added. On May 22, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s motion to strike and motion to bifurcate and/or stay claims relating to safety.

On June 16, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, asking for a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the Company’s motion to bifurcate and/or stay the San Francisco Action, and instead to stay proceedings pending FDA’s investigation. On June 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal denied the petition. On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On July 23, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

On August 27, 2014, the Court issued an order setting the case for a two-week bench trial beginning on February 8, 2016. On September 5, 2014, the City Attorney filed a second amended complaint, adding Monster Energy Company as a defendant. The Company and Monster Energy Company filed answers to the second amended complaint on October 4, 2014 and November 10, 2014, respectively. A case management conference is scheduled for March 10, 2015. Discovery is ongoing.

The Company denies that it has violated the Unfair Competition Law or any other law and believes that the City Attorney’s claims and demands are preempted and unconstitutional, as alleged in the action the Company filed in the Central District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss can be expressed.

In addition to the above matters, the Company has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy® brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy® brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors.

The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that is accrued, if any, or in the amount of any related insurance reimbursements recorded. As of December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company’s consolidated balance sheets include accrued loss contingencies of approximately $3.7 million and $17.0 million, respectively, and receivables for insurance reimbursements of approximately $0.0 million and $16.25 million, respectively. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Not applicable.

PART II

Principal Market

The Company’s common stock began trading in the over-the-counter market on November 8, 1990 and was subsequently quoted on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “HANS”. On July 5, 2007, the Company’s common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the same symbol, “HANS”. On January 5, 2012, stockholders of the Company approved the Company’s name change from Hansen Natural Corporation to Monster Beverage Corporation. In addition, on January 9, 2012, the Company’s common stock began trading under the symbol “MNST”. As of February 17, 2015, there were 170,016,322 shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding held by approximately 247 holders of record. The holders of record do not include those stockholders whose shares are held of record by banks, brokers and other financial institutions.

Stock Price and Dividend Information

The following table sets forth high and low per share sales price of our common stock for the periods indicated:

The per share sales prices of our common stock set forth above represent bid quotations between dealers, do not include retail markups, mark-downs or commissions and bid quotations may not necessarily represent actual transactions and “real time” sale prices. The source of the bid information is the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc.

We have not paid cash dividends to our stockholders since our inception and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

On April 7, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized a new share repurchase program for the repurchase of up to $200.0 million of the Company’s outstanding common stock (the “April 2013 Repurchase Plan”). During the year ended December 31, 2014, no shares of common stock were purchased under the April 2013 Repurchase Plan. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company purchased 0.95 million shares of common stock at an average purchase price of $56.98 per share for a total amount of $54.2 million (excluding broker commissions).

During the year ended December 31, 2014, 0.09 million shares were repurchased from employees in lieu of cash payments for options exercised or withholding taxes due for a total amount of $8.2 million. While such purchases are considered common stock repurchases, they are not counted as purchases against our authorized share repurchase programs, including the April 2013 Repurchase Plan.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2014 with respect to shares of our common stock that may be issued under our equity compensation plans.

Performance Graph

The following graph shows a five-year comparison of cumulative total returns:1

1Annual return assumes reinvestment of dividends. Cumulative total return assumes an initial investment of $100 on December 31, 2009. The Company’s current self-selected peer group is comprised of TCCC, DPS Group, National Beverage Corporation, Jones Soda Company and Cott Corporation.

The consolidated statements of operations data set forth below with respect to each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2012 through 2014 and the balance sheet data as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included herein, and should be read in conjunction with those financial statements and notes thereto, and with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included as Part II, Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The consolidated statements of operations data for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 and the balance sheet data as of December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 are derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements not included herein.

¹Includes $15.0 million, $14.8 million, $13.2 million, $13.0 million and $10.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, related to the recognition of deferred revenue.

²Includes ($0.2) million, $10.8 million, $1.5 million, $1.1 million and $0.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, related to expenditures attributable to the costs associated with terminating existing distributors.

*Gross sales is used internally by management as an indicator of and to monitor operating performance, including sales performance of particular products, salesperson performance, product growth or declines and overall Company performance. The use of gross sales allows evaluation of sales performance before the effect of any promotional items, which can mask certain performance issues. We therefore believe that the presentation of gross sales provides a useful measure of our operating performance. Gross sales is not a measure that is recognized under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and should not be considered as an alternative to net sales, which is determined in accordance with GAAP, and should not be used alone as an indicator of operating performance in place of net sales. Additionally, gross sales may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies as gross sales has been defined by our internal reporting practices. In addition, gross sales may not be realized in the form of cash receipts as promotional payments and allowances may be deducted from payments received from certain customers (See “Part II, Item 7 – Results of Operations”).

The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) is provided as a supplement to – and should be read in conjunction with – our financial statements and the accompanying notes (“Notes”) included in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations, estimates and projections about our business and operations. Our actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated and expressed in such forward-looking statements. See “Forward-Looking Statements” and “Part I. Item 1A – Risk Factors.”

This overview provides our perspective on the individual sections of MD&A. MD&A includes the following sections:

Our Business

Acquisitions and Divestitures

On August 14, 2014, the Company and TCCC entered into definitive agreements for the TCCC Transaction. Pursuant to the TCCC Transaction Agreements, the Company will reorganize into a new holding company by merging Merger Sub into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of NewCo. In the merger, each outstanding share of the Company’s common stock will be converted into one share of NewCo’s common stock.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the TCCC Transaction Agreements, upon the closing of the TCCC Transaction, (1) NewCo will issue to TCCC newly issued shares of common stock representing approximately 16.7% of the total number of shares of issued and outstanding NewCo common stock (after giving effect to the new issuance) and TCCC will have the right to nominate two individuals (reduced to one upon the earlier of (i) 36 months after the closing of the TCCC Transaction and (ii) TCCC’s equity interest in NewCo exceeding 20% of the outstanding shares of NewCo common stock) to NewCo’s Board of Directors, (2) TCCC will transfer its global energy drink business (including the NOS®, Full Throttle®, Burn®, Mother®, Play® and Power Play®, and Relentless® brands) to

NewCo, and the Company will transfer its non-energy drink business (including Hansen’s® Natural Sodas, Peace Tea®, Hubert’s® Lemonade and Hansen’s® Juice Products) to TCCC, (3) the Company and TCCC will amend their current distribution coordination agreements, which will contemplate expanding distribution of the Company’s products into additional territories pursuant to long-term distribution agreements with TCCC’s network of owned or controlled bottlers/distributors and independent bottling and distribution partners, and (4) TCCC will make a net cash payment of $2.15 billion to the Company (up to $625.0 million of which will be held in escrow, subject to release upon achievement of milestones relating to the transfer of distribution rights).

The waiting period under the HSR Act with respect to the TCCC Transaction expired on October 15, 2014, and all necessary approvals or consents from foreign antitrust authorities have been obtained. The closing of the transaction is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the second quarter of 2015.

Overview

We develop, market, sell and distribute “alternative” beverage category beverages primarily under the following brand names:

Our Monster Energy® drinks, which represented 93.3%, 92.5% and 92.3% of our net sales for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, primarily include the following:

We have two operating and reportable segments, namely Direct Store Delivery (“DSD”), the principal products of which comprise energy drinks, and Warehouse (“Warehouse”), the principal products of which comprise juice-based and soda beverages. The DSD segment develops, markets and sells products primarily through an exclusive distributor network, whereas the Warehouse segment develops, markets and sells products primarily direct to retailers. Following the consummation of the TCCC Transaction, the Company anticipates that it will have two operating and reporting segments: Concentrate, the principal products of which will likely include the various energy drink brands transferred to the Company from TCCC, and Finished Products, the principal products of which will likely include the Company’s Monster Energy® drink products that currently make up the majority of the DSD segment.

During the year ended December 31, 2014, we continued to expand our existing product lines and flavors and further developed our markets. In particular, we continued to focus on developing and marketing beverages that fall within the category generally described as the “alternative” beverage category. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we introduced the following products:

Showing the first 8K of 96K characters. Open the full section

In the normal course of business, our financial position is routinely subject to a variety of risks. The principal market risks (i.e., the risk of loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices) to which we are exposed are fluctuations in commodity prices affecting the costs of our raw materials (including, but not limited to, increases in the costs of juice concentrates, increases in the price of aluminum for cans, resin for PET plastic bottles, as well as cane sugar and other sweeteners, glucose, sucrose, milk, cream and protein, all of which are used in some or many of our products), fluctuations in energy and fuel prices, and limited availability of certain raw materials. We generally do not use hedging agreements or alternative instruments to manage the risks associated with securing sufficient ingredients or raw materials. We are also subject to market risks with respect to the cost of commodities because our ability to recover increased costs through higher pricing is limited by the competitive environment in which we operate.

We do not use derivative financial instruments to protect ourselves from fluctuations in interest rates and do not hedge against fluctuations in commodity prices.

Our gross sales to customers outside of the United States were approximately 23% of consolidated gross sales for both the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013. Our growth strategy includes expanding our international business. As a result, we are subject to risks from changes in foreign currency exchange rates. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we entered into forward currency exchange contracts with financial institutions to create an economic hedge to specifically manage a portion of the foreign exchange risk exposure associated with certain consolidated subsidiaries’ non-functional currency denominated assets and liabilities. All foreign currency exchange contracts entered into by us as of December 31, 2014 have terms of one month or less. We do not enter into forward currency exchange contracts for speculation or trading purposes.

We have not designated our foreign currency exchange contracts as hedge transactions under ASC 815. Therefore, gains and losses on our foreign currency exchange contracts are recognized in interest and other (expense) income, net, in the consolidated statements of income, and are largely offset by the changes in the fair value of the underlying economically hedged item. We do not consider the potential loss resulting from a hypothetical 10% adverse change in quoted foreign currency exchange rates as of December 31, 2014 to be significant.

As of December 31, 2014, we had $370.3 million in cash and cash equivalents and $824.1 million in short-term and long-term investments including U.S. treasuries, certificates of deposit and municipal securities which may have an auction reset feature. Certain of these investments are subject to general credit, liquidity, market and interest rate risks. At the current time, we are not increasing our investments in auction rate securities.

The information required to be furnished in response to this ITEM 8 follows the signature page and Index to Exhibits hereto at pages 69 through 114.

None.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures – Under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we have evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) of the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon this evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is (1) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in rules and forms of the SEC and (2) accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive and principal financial officers as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting – Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, our management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, based on the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on our management’s evaluation under the framework in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013), our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2014.

Our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, has been audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their attestation report, which is included herein.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting – There were no changes in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2014, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Monster Beverage Corporation Corona, California

We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Monster Beverage Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2014, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company’s board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, based on the criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 of the Company and our report dated March 2, 2015 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and financial statement schedule.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California March 2, 2015

None.

PART III

The information required by this item regarding our directors is included under the caption “Proposal One – Election of Directors” in our Proxy Statement for our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “2015 Proxy Statement”) and is incorporated herein by reference.

Information concerning compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act is included under the caption “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in our 2015 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Information concerning the Audit Committee and the Audit Committee Financial expert is reported under the caption “Audit Committee; Report of the Audit Committee; Duties and Responsibilities” in our 2015 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all our directors, officers (including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and controllers) and employees and is available at http://investors.monsterbevcorp.com/governance.cfm. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and any amendment thereto, as well as any waivers that are required to be disclosed by the rules of the SEC or NASDAQ, may be obtained at no cost to you by writing or telephoning us at the following address or telephone number:

Monster Beverage Corporation

1 Monster Way

Corona, CA 92879

(951) 739-6200

(800) 426-7367

Information concerning the compensation of our directors and executive officers and Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation is reported under the captions “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” and “Compensation Committee,” respectively, in our 2015 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

The disclosure set forth in Item 5, “Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities”, of this report is incorporated herein.

Information concerning the beneficial ownership of the Company’s Common Stock of (a) those persons known to the Company to be the beneficial owners of more than 5% of the Company’s common stock; (b) each of the Company’s directors and nominees for director; and (c) the Company’s executive officers and all of the Company’s current directors and executive officers as a group is reported under the caption “Principal Stockholders and Security Ownership of Management” in our 2015 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Information concerning certain relationships and related transactions is reported under the caption “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence” in our 2015 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Information concerning our accountant fees and our Audit Committee’s pre-approval of audit and permissible non-audit services of independent auditors is reported under the captions “Principal Accounting Firm Fees” and “Pre-Approval of Audit and Non-Audit Services,” respectively, in our 2015 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

PART IV

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

The following designated exhibits, as indicated below, are either filed or furnished, as applicable herewith or have heretofore been filed or furnished with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as indicated by footnote.

Showing the first 8K of 154K characters. Open the full section