BEYOND MEAT, INC.

Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

On January 14, 2021, the Company entered into the Campus Lease with the Landlord to house the Company’s Campus Headquarters. The Campus Lease was initially classified as an operating lease. For a description of the Campus Lease, the Surrendered Premises, the Varda Sublease and the letter of credit, see Note 4.

China Investment and Lease Agreement

In 2020, the Company and its subsidiary, Beyond Meat (Jiaxing) Food Co., Ltd. (“BYND JX”), entered into an investment agreement with the Administrative Committee (the “JX Committee”) of the Jiaxing Economic & Technological Development Zone (the “JXEDZ”) pursuant to which, among other things, BYND JX agreed to make certain investments in the JXEDZ intwo phases of development, and the Company has agreed to guarantee certain repayment obligations of BYND JX under such agreement.

During Phase 1, the Company agreed to invest $10.0 million as the registered capital of BYND JX in the JXEDZ through intercompany investment in BYND JX. and BYND JX agreed to lease a facility in the JXEDZ for a minimum oftwo years. In connection with such agreement, BYND JX entered into a factory leasing contract with a JXEDZ company, pursuant to which BYND JX agreed to lease and renovate a facility in the JXEDZ and lease it for a minimum oftwo years. In 2022, the lease was amended to extend the term for an additional five years without rent escalation. On February 24, 2025, as part of the Company’s global operations review initiated in 2023 (the “Global Operations Review”), the Company’s board of directors approved a plan to suspend the Company’s operational activities in China, which ceased as of the end of 2025. As of March 28, 2026, the Company continued to use this facility in its process of winding down the operational activities in China and has notified the landlord of its intention to terminate the lease at the end of June 2026.

In the fourth quarter of 2021, BYND JX leased an approximately 12,000 square foot facility in Shanghai, China, for a period ofeight years, which was used as a local research and development facility. In connection with the cessation of operational activities in China, BYND JX and the landlord agreed to terminate the lease early effective as of May 20, 2025.

As of March 28, 2026, the Company had invested $22.5 million as the registered capital of BYND JX that included $0.5 million to fund the cessation of its operational activities in China, and advanced $20.0 million to BYND JX.

The Planet Partnership

In 2021, the Company entered into the Planet Partnership, LLC (“TPP”), a joint venture with PepsiCo, Inc., to develop, produce and market innovative snack and beverage products made from plant-based protein. In the three months ended March 28, 2026 and March 29, 2025, the Company recognized its share of the net losses in TPP in the amount of $16,000 and $11,000, respectively. As of March 28, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had contributed its share of the investment in TPP in the amount of $27.6 million. See Note 13.

Purchase Commitments

On March 28, 2026, the Company and Roquette entered into a Sales Agreement (the “Sales Agreement”) pursuant to which Roquette will provide the Company with pea protein. The Sales Agreement expires on December 31, 2027, subject to extension or early termination under certain circumstances. The Sales Agreement provides for pea protein to be supplied by Roquette in each of 2026 and 2027, on a purchase order basis per specified minimum annual base quantities, subject to periodic adjustment based on the Company’s binding forecasted requirements throughout the term. The Company is not required to purchase and Roquette is not required to deliver pea protein in amounts in excess of such specified minimum annual quantities. The total annual amount purchased each year by the Company must be at least the minimum amount specified in the Sales Agreement, which totals in the aggregate approximately $23.5 million (subject to annual inflationary and exchange rate adjustments) over the term of the Sales Agreement. If the Company does not purchase the applicable minimum annual quantities, it will be required to pay Roquette liquidated damages calculated as a percentage of the amount the Company would have been required to pay for the unpurchased volumes in the relevant year, subject to roll over of a portion of unpurchased volumes from year to year. The Sales Agreement requires the Company to procure a $1.0 million standby letter of credit to secure its payment obligations thereunder and also provides for the Company and Roquette to indemnify one another in certain circumstances. The Company procured a $1.0 million standby letter of credit to secure its payment obligations under the Sales Agreement. In accordance with the Sales Agreement, the Company included the $1.0 million standby letter of credit requirement as Restricted cash, non-current as of March 28, 2026. As of March 28, 2026, pursuant to the Sales Agreement, the Company committed to purchase pea protein inventory totaling $23.5 million as of March 28, 2026, of which $11.8 million is expected to be purchased in 2026 and $11.7 million in 2027.

Litigation

In connection with the matters described below, the Company has accrued for loss contingencies where it believes that losses are probable and estimable. No loss contingency is recorded for matters where such losses are either not probable or reasonably estimable (or both). Although it is reasonably possible that actual losses could be in excess of the Company’s accrual, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of its accrual, due to various reasons, including, among others, that: (i) the proceedings are in early stages or no claims have been asserted, (ii) specific damages have not been sought in all of these matters, (iii) damages, if asserted, are considered unsupported and/or exaggerated, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions or settlements, (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories presented. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending legal proceedings, and some of the matters discussed below seek or may seek potentially large and/or indeterminate amounts. Any such loss or excess loss could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows or on the Company’s financial condition.

In addition to the matters described below, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Based on the facts currently available, the Company does not believe that the disposition of such other matters that are pending or asserted will have a material effect on its financial statements.

Aliments BVeggie, Inc.

In November 2023, Aliments BVeggie, Inc. (“BVeggie”) filed and served legal proceedings against the Company before the Superior Court of Quebec’s District of Montreal. BVeggie alleges, among other things that: (i) in 2019, the Company and BVeggie entered into a co-manufacturing agreement, by which BVeggie would produce and deliver products for the benefit of the Company, in exchange for a tolling fee to be paid per pound of product produced and delivered to the Company; (ii) the Company would have made false and misleading statements regarding the volume of purchase orders it would provide BVeggie; (iii) BVeggie invested significant sums to adapt its facilities for the intended production; (iv) the Company fell short of its undertakings and promises; and (v) in March 2023, the Company illegally terminated the business relationship. BVeggie intends to claim damages in the total amount of 129,841,920 CAD, in compensation for its investments, lost profits and the repairs needed to be made to its facility post-termination of the business relationship and removal of the Company’s equipment. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. On December 7, 2023, the Company filed a motion for declinatory exception to stay the proceedings pending before the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, and refer the dispute to arbitration in California. A hearing on the motion for declinatory exception occurred on April 25, 2024. By judgment dated May 9, 2024, the Superior Court of Quebec granted the motion for declinatory exception filed by the Company and declared that the courts sitting in Los Angeles County, in the State of California, are in a better position to decide the dispute. BVeggie appealed the court’s decision on June 7, 2024, and the Company filed a cross-appeal on June 18, 2024. The appeals were heard on October 30, 2025 and by judgment rendered on November 21, 2025, the Court of Appeal has decided to grant the Company’s motion for declinatory exception and to defer the dispute to arbitration in California. BVeggie had 60 days from the day of the judgment to file a motion for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Said delay has now elapsed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is now final.

In June 2024 and in parallel to the litigation mentioned above, BVeggie filed and served legal proceedings against the Company before the Superior Court of Quebec’s District of Montreal, asking that an agreement between the parties by which BVeggie was to purchase certain machinery from the Company, in the amount of $5.1 million, be voided. This litigation was suspended pending the outcome of the aforementioned appeals.

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

Consumer Class Actions Regarding Protein Claims

From May 31, 2022 through January 13, 2023, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the Company’s products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states’ laws. Specifically, each of these lawsuits allege one or more of the following theories of liability: (i) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; (ii) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; and (iii) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are “all-natural,” “organic,” or contain no “synthetic” ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. The named plaintiffs of each complaint seek to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. Additional complaints asserting these theories of liability are possible. Some lawsuits previously filed were voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed without prejudice, though they may be refiled.

On November 14, 2022, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the Panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The Panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings, In re: Beyond Meat, Inc. Protein Content Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-00669 (N.D. Ill.) (the “MDL”).

On March 3, 2023, the MDL court held the initial status conference. The MDL court granted plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim class counsel. On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Company’s motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 5, 2023. The Company’s reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on July 21, 2023.

On February 22, 2024, the MDL court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. On March 5, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report noting they had agreed to engage in mediation. On April 24, 2024, the parties engaged in mediation before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.) but did not reach agreement. Negotiations continued and the parties entered into a confidential binding settlement term sheet on May 6, 2024. On July 8, 2024, the parties entered into a class action settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company agreed to contribute $7.5 million to a settlement fund in full satisfaction of all settlement costs and attorneys’ fees.

On August 5, 2024, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The MDL court granted the motion for preliminary approval on August 14, 2024.

On January 23, 2025, upon reviewing submissions from the court-appointed settlement administrator and the plaintiffs acting on behalf of the class, and after holding a final settlement hearing, the court issued a minute order approving the class action settlement and indicating a final approval order will be entered. On March 24, 2025, the court issued the final approval order. Final approval resolves the claims of all persons (individuals and/or entities) who purchased any Beyond Meat product (as defined in the settlement agreement) for household use and not for resale or distribution, from May 31, 2018 to August 14, 2024.

The Company paid $250,000 to the settlement fund in August 2024. The final effective date of the settlement agreement was April 24, 2025. The Company recorded $7.5 million in SG&A expenses in its condensed consolidated statement of operations and paid $250,000 in the year ended December 31, 2024, and included $7.25 million in Accrued litigation settlement costs in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 29, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The Company’s final payment of $7.25 million was paid into escrow by May 14, 2025. The court appointed settlement administrator is in the process of finalizing distributions to the class.

The active lawsuits, each of which was consolidated and transferred to the MDL and is subject to the class action settlement agreement, are:

•Roberts v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02861 (N.D. Ill.) (filed May 31, 2022)

•Cascio v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-04018 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed July 8, 2022)

•Miller v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed July 26, 2022)

•Garcia v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00297 (S.D. Iowa) (filed September 9, 2022)

•Borovoy v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06302 (N.D. Ill.) (filed September 30, 2022 in DuPage Co., Ill.; removed on Nov. 10, 2022)

•Zakinov v Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00144 (S.D. Tex.) (filed January 13, 2023)

Interbev Dispute

In October 2020, Interbev, a French trade association for the livestock and meat industry sent a cease-and-desist letter toone of the Company’s contract manufacturers alleging that the use of “meat” and meat-related terms is misleading the French consumer. Despite the Company’s best efforts to reach a settlement, including a formal settlement proposal from the Company in March 2021, Interbev no longer responded. Instead, on March 13, 2022, the Company was served a summons by Interbev to appear before the Commercial Court of Paris (the “Economic Activities Court” or the “Court”). The summons alleges that the Company misleads the French consumer with references to e.g. “plant based meat,” “plant based burger” and related descriptive names, and alleges that the Company is denigrating meat and meat products. The relief sought by Interbev includes (i) changing the presentation of Beyond Meat products to avoid any potential confusion with meat products, (ii)

publication of the judgment of the court in the media, and (iii) damages of EUR 200,000. On October 12, 2022, the Company submitted its brief in defense.

On February 1, 2023, Interbev submitted updated pleadings to the Economic Activities Court. Interbev maintains its position that the Company is misleading the consumer, and additionally alleges that the Company is engaging in unlawful comparative advertising of its products with respect to meat and meat products. The relief sought is unchanged. On May 24, 2023, the Company submitted its defense, strongly disputing these claims. In September 2023, the Company submitted a request to stay proceedings in the commercial litigation proceedings, pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the administrative litigation case against the Contested Decree (as defined below). On September 27, 2023, Interbev obtained an extension to submit a response to the Company. On October 25, 2023, Interbev submitted its response opposing the Company’s request to stay proceedings and asking that the written procedure of the case be closed. The Company responded on November 22, 2023, and Interbev submitted an additional reply on January 16, 2024. On March 20, 2024, the Economic Activities Court held a hearing on the decision to stay proceedings, and on April 25, 2024, the Economic Activities Court decided that the case should proceed. To that end, the Economic Activities Court set the date for an oral hearing on September 4, 2024, which was subsequently postponed to December 18, 2024, following a joint request from the parties. Interbev submitted its last written brief on September 30, 2024. The Company filed its last written brief on October 28, 2024. On November 26, 2024, Interbev filed an amended brief, including a reference to the CJEU judgment of October 4, 2024, in which the CJEU ruled that "meat" is defined under EU law as "edible parts of certain animals," meaning that the Company could not use the term, even in its marketing materials. The Company filed a subsequent amended brief on December 3, 2024. On December 17, 2024, Interbev submitted a copy of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (the “EUIPO”) Board of Appeal’s decision partially rejecting the Company’s appeal against the first instance decision taken by the EUIPO on May 7, 2024 by which the latter invalidated the Caped Steer logo/mark. The hearing on the merits was held on December 18, 2024. Initially, a first-instance decision was expected on February 17, 2025, but it was postponed to February 20, 2025, and then again to February 27, 2025. On February 27, 2025, the Economic Activities Court rendered its first-instance judgment (the “Judgment”). In the Judgment, the Court ruled that (i) the Company may continue to use meaty names (sausage, burger, etc.) for its products, but that it must immediately cease using the term “meat” to describe them (the Court relied on the CJEU ’s decision of October 4, 2024 on this point). The Court considers that this can be done immediately as the term “meat” is only used on the Company’s website and social media; (ii) the Company must remove the caped steer logo from its packaging and communications within 18 months of service of the Judgment (the Court relied on the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision of December 17, 2024 on this point); (iii) the Court considered that from the time of its penetration of the French market until 2021, the Company referred French consumers to its US social media. These media contained health claims that are illegal in Europe and thus constituted a misleading practice. However, the Court noted that such activity had ceased; and (iv) the Court found that the Company engages in illegal comparative advertising by comparing its products to meat in a subjective matter (e.g., better taste, better for the environment, healthier than animal meat) and ordered it to immediately cease all communications that equate its products to meat and/or include a subjective comparison. The decisions under points (i) and (iv) above were made under a daily penalty of EUR 1,000 starting to count one month after the service of the Judgment on the Company.

However, the Court also dismissed several of Interbev’s other arguments. In complete contradiction to its rulings above, the Court found that the physical and nutritional characteristics of the Company’s products, their packaging, labeling, the indication of source of protein or rich in protein, and their general presentation do not create any confusion between the Company’s products and meat or meat products. Moreover, the presentation of the Company’s products in the meat aisle of supermarkets was irrelevant for the question of whether or not there was confusion between the products and meat. This means that the Company does not need to change the brand name—Beyond Meat—nor does the Company need to make any changes to the meaty names of the Company’s products. The Company does not need to make any changes to the physical and nutritional characteristics of the Company’ products, or any changes to the labels or lists of ingredients of the Company’s products. The Company will continue to present its products as an alternative source of protein.

In terms of costs and damages, the Court ordered the Company, as well as The New Plant, to pay EUR 1 for financial damage, EUR 50,000 for moral damage and EUR 15,000 for legal costs to Interbev. The publication of the Judgment in three specialized reviews/magazines has also been ordered, unless there is an appeal. The Company filed an appeal against the Judgment on September 15, 2025. On October 1, 2025, the appeal was assigned to the second chamber of the Paris Court of Appeals under case number 25/15729. In February 2026, the Company decided not to pursue the appeal and accordingly filed an appeal withdrawal brief, which has immediate procedural effect. On February 19, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeals issued formal judgment acknowledging the withdrawal of the appeal.

On April 21, 2023, Interbev filedtwo actions before the EUIPO to cancel the Company’s EU trademark registration for the Caped Steer logo. Interbev sought cancellation of the trademark, alleging that the trademark was invalid because it allegedly misleads the public about the nature and characteristics of the products offered under the mark. Interbev also sought cancellation on the basis of allegedly misleading use. On July 7, 2023, the Company submitted its responses to these actions, strongly disputing these claims and defending its use and registration of the Caped Steer logo. Interbev’s response regarding misleading use of the mark was filed on September 14, 2023, and the Company responded on November 17, 2023. Interbev’s response regarding the invalidity of the mark was filed and served on the Company in November 2023, and the Company responded on January 12, 2024. On May 7, 2024, the Company was served with the EUIPO’s first instance decision regarding the invalidity of the mark. The EUIPO held the mark to be invalid insofar as the registration covered specifically meat or dairy substitute goods. The EUIPO held the trademark to be valid insofar as the registration is for other plant, cereal, vegetable, fruit or nut-based goods. The Company filed a formal appeal of the first instance decision on July 5, 2024, followed by its substantive grounds of appeal on September 9, 2024. Interbev filed a response on November 11, 2024. On December 17, 2024, the Company was served with the EUIPO Board of Appeal decision. The Board of Appeal upheld the appeal on one point, allowing the goods chili con carne to also remain on the register and confirmed the first instance decision on all other points. The Company decided against a further appeal, i.e. against bringing an action to the EU General Court in the matter. The second proceeding regarding misleading use was previously suspended in May 2024 due to the first instance decision regarding the invalidity of the mark in the parallel proceeding. The Cancellation Division at the EUIPO has now rejected the cancellation application based on allegedly misleading use, ordering Interbev to bear the procedural costs. The EUIPO found that as the contested mark no longer covers meat substitute products (rejected in the first cancellation proceeding based on the invalidity of the mark), Interbev's arguments were unfounded.

Arbitration with Former Co-Manufacturer

In March 2024, a former co-manufacturer (“Manufacturer”) brought an action against the Company in a confidential arbitration proceeding. The Company had entered into an agreement with the Manufacturer, under which the Manufacturer was responsible for producing products on behalf of the Company. The Company terminated the agreement in November 2023 due to the Manufacturer’s failure to produce food in compliance with applicable laws, as required by the agreement. The Manufacturer alleged that the Company terminated the agreement without a contractual basis to do so and that it was owed past and future payments under the agreement. The Manufacturer claimed total damages of at least approximately $73.0 million. In October 2024, the Company filed amended counterclaims against the Manufacturer for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, false promise, concealment, and intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. On September 15, 2025, the arbitrator issued an interim award (the “Interim Award”) and found that the Company had a valid basis to terminate the agreement with the Manufacturer. On September 25, 2025, the Manufacturer filed a request with the arbitrator to re-open the arbitration hearing. On September 29, 2025, the Company opposed this request. On October 20, 2025, the arbitrator denied the Manufacturer’s request. Shortly thereafter, the parties engaged in fees briefing. On December 10, 2025, the arbitrator issued the final award, and on December 18, 2025, the arbitrator corrected scrivener’s and other typographical errors in the final award (the “Final Award”). Certain details of the Interim Award and Final Award are confidential. The Final Award is similar to the Interim Award, but the Interim Award does not address attorneys’ fees, costs and interests. In the Final Award, the arbitrator awarded the Company: (i) $349,493 for its breach of contract claim in out of pocket costs, (ii) $7,183,782 for its negligent misrepresentation claim, which is inclusive of the $349,493 in contract damages awarded for the Company’s breach of contract claim, (iii) $6,246,693 for its attorneys’ fees; and (iv) $550,640 for its costs. In total, the arbitrator awarded the Company $13,981,115 (the “Total Award”). On January 30, 2026, the Company filed a petition to confirm the Final Award and enter judgment in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. On February 13, 2026, the Manufacturer filed an ex parte application to extend its deadline to oppose the Company’s petition and set a briefing schedule on its forthcoming petition to vacate the Final Award. The Company opposed the ex parte application. On February 17, 2026, the court granted the Manufacturer’s ex parte application and scheduled the hearing on both the Company’s petition to confirm the Final Award and enter judgment and the Manufacturer’s forthcoming petition to vacate for May 1, 2026. On March 13, 2026, the Manufacturer opposed the Company’s petition and filed a petition to vacate the Final Award. The Company’s reply in support of its petition and opposition to the Manufacturer’s petition to vacate was due on April 3, 2026. Because the parties were negotiating and finalizing a settlement agreement, they requested all deadlines be extended by two months. On April 24, 2026, the parties reached a full and final settlement in the amount of $11,000,000 which is due and payable to the Company within 60 days.

Trademark Infringement Litigation

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

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

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

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

Aljendan v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al.

On January 23, 2026, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Aljendan v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00742 (the “Aljendan Action”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the book and market value of certain long-lived assets and the likelihood that the Company would have to record a material, non-cash impairment charge. The complaint seeks an order certifying the class; awarding compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ and expert fees; and granting other unspecified relief. The complaint alleges causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 27, 2025 and November 11, 2025, inclusive. On April 6, 2026, the Court appointed Brandon Mitchell Waldaias, Aaron Saran and Brandon Barclay as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Pomerantz LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. On April 28, 2026, the Court entered an order setting forth that Co-Lead Plaintiffs shall designate an operative complaint or file an amended complaint by June 1, 2026, and setting a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss the Company may file. The case is at a preliminary stage. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Azima v. Brown, et al.

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