Skip to content
AnalystLens

Keurig Dr Pepper 8-K Report, Corporate Update (Nov 21, 2025)

Reports
Other Events
Filing Date
Filed November 21, 2025
Period End
November 21, 2025
Security
KDP
In the record · 2016–202610-K1210-Q338-K216

KDP filed 12 annual reports (10-K), 33 quarterly reports (10-Q) and 216 current reports (8-K) between 2016 and 2026.

  1. Material agreement8-K · Jan ’18Jan ’18
  2. Material agreement8-K · Apr ’20Apr ’20
  3. Leadership change8-K · Dec ’22Dec ’22
  4. Leadership change8-K · Jan ’25Jan ’25

01—Abstract

Summary

Summary of the 8-K filed November 21, 2025. Cited figures are marked; the original filing is the authoritative source.

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. (KDP) filed this Current Report on Form 8-K under Item 8.01 (Other Events) to disclose a development in the In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

The court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification, finding that they did not meet the federal requirements to pursue the case on a classwide basis. The direct purchaser plaintiffs had claimed more than $3 billiona in classwide monetary damages. The direct purchaser plaintiffs have filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking to appeal the SDNY decision.

The company states that it intends to continue vigorously defending both the direct purchaser plaintiffs' appeal and the remaining lawsuits in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. For further detail, the filing refers readers to Note 15 of the company's Form 10-Q filed on October 28, 2025.

02—Key points

Key Highlights

  1. The SDNY court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.
  2. The court found the plaintiffs did not meet federal requirements to pursue their case on a classwide basis.
  3. The direct purchaser plaintiffs had claimed more than $3 billion in classwide monetary damages.
  4. The direct purchaser plaintiffs have petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to appeal the decision.
  5. The company intends to continue vigorously defending the appeal and the remaining lawsuits in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.
  6. Further litigation details are referenced in Note 15 of the Form 10-Q filed on October 28, 2025.

03—Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What did the court decide in the antitrust litigation?

    The SDNY court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification, finding that they did not meet the federal requirements to pursue the case on a classwide basis.

  2. How much in damages were the plaintiffs seeking?

    The direct purchaser plaintiffs claimed more than $3 billion in classwide monetary damages.

  3. Can the plaintiffs still pursue the case?

    The direct purchaser plaintiffs have filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking to appeal the SDNY decision, so the matter is not yet resolved. The remaining lawsuits in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation also continue.

  4. How does the company plan to respond?

    The company intends to continue vigorously defending the direct purchaser plaintiffs' appeal and the remaining lawsuits in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.

  5. Where can investors find more information on this litigation?

    The filing refers investors to Note 15 of the company's Form 10-Q filed on October 28, 2025, for further information related to this litigation.

04—Continue

← View all 8-K filings