XML 62 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Commitments And Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 27, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments We guarantee obligations of certain outside third parties, consisting primarily of leases and grower loans, which are substantially collateralized by the underlying assets. Terms of the underlying debt cover periods up to 10 years, and the maximum potential amount of future payments as of December 27, 2014, was $62 million. We also maintain operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of the underlying leased assets at the end of the term of the lease. The remaining terms of the lease maturities cover periods over the next 13 years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is $53 million, of which $47 million could be recoverable through various recourse provisions and an additional undeterminable recoverable amount based on the fair value of the underlying leased assets. The likelihood of material payments under these guarantees is not considered probable. At December 27, 2014, and September 27, 2014, no material liabilities for guarantees were recorded. We have cash flow assistance programs in which certain livestock suppliers participate. Under these programs, we pay an amount for livestock equivalent to a standard cost to grow such livestock during periods of low market sales prices. The amounts of such payments that are in excess of the market sales price are recorded as receivables and accrue interest. Participating suppliers are obligated to repay these receivables balances when market sales prices exceed this standard cost, or upon termination of the agreement. Our maximum obligation associated with these programs is limited to the fair value of each participating livestock supplier’s net tangible assets. The potential maximum obligation as of December 27, 2014, was approximately $330 million. We had no receivables under these programs at December 27, 2014 and $4 million at September 27, 2014. These receivables are included, net of allowance for uncollectible amounts, in Accounts Receivable in our Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. Even though these programs are limited to the net tangible assets of the participating livestock suppliers, we also manage a portion of our credit risk associated with these programs by obtaining security interests in livestock suppliers’ assets. After analyzing residual credit risks and general market conditions, we have no allowance for these programs’ estimated uncollectible receivables at December 27, 2014, and September 27, 2014. Contingencies We are involved in various claims and legal proceedings. We routinely assess the likelihood of adverse judgments or outcomes to those matters, as well as ranges of probable losses, to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. We record accruals for such matters to the extent that we conclude a loss is probable and the financial impact, should an adverse outcome occur, is reasonably estimable. Such accruals are reflected in the Company’s consolidated condensed financial statements. In our opinion, we have made appropriate and adequate accruals for these matters and believe the probability of a material loss beyond the amounts accrued to be remote; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if accruals are not adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Listed below are certain claims made against the Company and/or our subsidiaries for which the potential exposure is considered material to the Company’s consolidated condensed financial statements. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims made and intend to vigorously defend these matters. There are seven pending lawsuits involving our beef, pork and prepared foods plants, in which certain present and past employees allege that we failed to compensate them for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities, such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state laws. The plaintiffs seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. Each case is proceeding in its jurisdiction.
• | Garcia, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Kansas, May 15, 2006 - After a trial involving our Garden City, Kansas beef plant, a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was entered on March 17, 2011. Exclusive of pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, the jury found violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work activities and awarded damages in the amount of $503,011. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an application for attorneys’ fees and expenses which we contested. On December 7, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' counsel's application and awarded a total of $3,609,723. We appealed the jury’s verdict and trial court’s award to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and judgment and subsequently denied our petition for rehearing. We subsequently paid the judgment.
• | Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D. Iowa, February 6, 2007 - A jury trial was held involving our Storm Lake, Iowa pork plant which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work activities. The trial court also awarded the plaintiffs liquidated damages, resulting in total damages awarded in the amount of $5,784,758. The plaintiffs' counsel has also filed an application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $2,692,145. We appealed the jury's verdict and trial court's award to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and judgment on August 25, 2014, and we filed a petition for rehearing on September 22, 2014, which was denied.
• | Acosta, et al. v Tyson Foods, Inc. dba Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Nebraska, February 29, 200 8 - A bench trial was held involving our Madison, Nebraska pork plant, in January 2013. In May 2013 the trial court awarded the plaintiffs $5,733,943 for unpaid overtime wages. Subsequently, the court ordered the class of plaintiffs expanded, and the plaintiffs submitted an updated calculation of $6,258,330 for unpaid overtime wages as reflected by payroll data through May 2013. On January 30, 2014, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $18,774,989, which represents a tripling of the plaintiffs’ alleged damages. The court denied our post-trial motions, and we appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held before the appellate court on January 15, 2015.
• | Gomez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., D. Nebraska, January 16, 2008 - A jury trial involving our Dakota City, Nebraska beef plant, was held, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on April 3, 2013. On October 2, 2013, the trial court denied the parties’ post-trial motions and entered judgment awarding unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and penalties totaling $4,960,787. We appealed the jury’s verdict and trial court’s award to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held before the appellate court on January 15, 2015.
• | Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. dba Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008 - The trial court in this case, which involves our Perry and Waterloo, Iowa pork plants, decertified the state law class and granted other pre-trial motions that resulted in judgment in our favor with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify this judgment.
• | Abdiaziz, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Kansas, September 30, 2011 - This case involves our Emporia, Kansas beef plant, and was bifurcated from the case involving our Garden City, Kansas beef plant. It is presently stayed.
• | Murray, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., C.D. Illinois, January 2, 2008; and DeVoss v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, C.D. Illinois, March 2, 2011 - These cases involve our Joslin, Illinois beef plant and are in their preliminary stages.
• | Dozier, Southerland, et al. v. Hillshire Brands, Co., Inc. E.D. North Carolina, September 2, 2014 - This case involves our Tarboro, N.C. prepared foods plant and is in its preliminary stages.
Our subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999. The complaint is filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the “respondents”). The complaint primarily alleges unfair labor practices due to the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The Hillshire Brands Company. In 2006, the arbitrator ruled against the respondents and awarded the complainants PHP 3,453,664,710 (approximately US$76 million) in damages and fees. The respondents appealed this ruling and it was subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. However, in a decision dated June 4, 2014, the Supreme Court of the Philippines set aside the NLRC’s December 2006 ruling as premature. The parties have filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions for review in these cases as to the merits of complainants’ claims and the appropriate amount of an appeal bond to be posted by the respondents. Certain of these appeals and motions remain pending before the NLRC and Supreme Court of the Philippines. On June 23, 2014, without admitting liability, The Hillshire Brands Company filed a motion requesting that the Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of all claims against it and its predecessors-in-interest in exchange for payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an amount not to exceed PHP 342,287,800 (approximately US$7 million).

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration