position, results of operations or cash flows. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. 

On February 12, 2018, Stone Brewing Company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of California against MCBC USA alleging that the Keystone  brand has “rebranded” itself as “Stone” and is marketing itself in a manner confusingly similar to Stone Brewing Company's registered Stone trademark. Stone Brewing Company seeks treble damages in the amount of MCBC USA's profit from  Keystone sales. MCBC USA subsequently filed an answer and counterclaims against Stone Brewing Company. On May 31, 2018, Stone Brewing Company filed a motion to dismiss MCBC USA's counterclaims and for a preliminary injunction seeking to bar MCBC USA from continuing to use “STONE” on Keystone Light cans and related marketing materials. In March 2019, the court denied Stone Brewing Company’s motion for preliminary injunction and its motion to dismiss MCBC USA's counterclaims. Discovery is closed. The jury trial scheduled to begin October 13, 2020 was continued by the court and has not yet been reset. We intend to vigorously assert and defend our rights in this lawsuit. A range of potential loss is not estimable at this time. 

On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed substantially similar putative class action complaints against the Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert (the “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Colorado District Court”), and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Illinois District Court”). On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company’s stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs. On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead plaintiff were filed in each case. On May 24, 2019, the securities class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was transferred to the Colorado District Court, and subsequently was voluntarily dismissed on July 25, 2019. On October 2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in Colorado District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated case. On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint alleging that the Defendants made false statements and material omissions to the market beginning in February 2017 and ending in February 2019, which, it alleges, misled the market as to the strength of our financial condition and internal control processes related to financial accounting. The amended complaint further alleges that the Company and the Defendants caused the Company to falsely report its financial results by overstating retained earnings, net income, and tax benefits and understating deferred tax liabilities in an effort to inflate the price of our common stock. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 23, 2020; the plaintiff subsequently filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on March 9, 2020; and we filed our reply brief in support of our motion to dismiss on April 8, 2020. Oral argument on the motion occurred on October 28, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the Court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice and the deadline to appeal has passed. This case is now fully resolved and closed. 

On March 26, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a purported shareholder derivative action in Colorado District Court against the Company’s board of directors and certain officers (the “Individual Defendants”), and the Company as a nominal defendant. On May 14, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court. On August 12, 2019, a third derivative complaint was filed in Colorado District Court by a purported stockholder. All three derivative complaints assert claims against the Individual Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising out of the Company’s dissemination to shareholders of purportedly materially misleading and inaccurate information in connection with the Company’s restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017. The complaints further allege that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting. The third derivative complaint filed in August also alleges the Individual Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing misleading statements in the Company’s proxy statement. The relief sought in the complaints include changes to the Company’s corporate governance procedures, unspecified damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, other costs and such other relief as the court deems proper. All three derivative actions have been administratively closed. A range of potential loss is not estimable at this time. 

## Regulatory Contingencies 

In December 2018, the U.S. Department of Treasury issued a regulation that impacts our ability to claim a refund of certain federal duties, taxes, and fees paid for beer sold between the U.S. and certain other countries effective in February 2019. As a result, based on the terms of the regulation, it is the U.S. Department of Treasury's position that future claims will no longer be accepted, and we may be further unable to collect previously claimed, but not yet received, refunds. In January 2020, the United States Court of International Trade issued an opinion and order ruling the challenged portions of this regulation dealing with refunds of certain federal duties, taxes and fees paid with respect to certain imported beer, to the extent of certain 

