XML 31 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Commitments And Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 28, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments We lease equipment, properties and certain farms for which total rentals approximated $220 million, $200 million and $186 million, in fiscal 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Most leases have initial terms of up to seven years, some with varying renewal periods. Minimum lease commitments under non-cancelable leases at September 28, 2019, were:
| in millions |
| Operating Lease Commitments |
2020 | $ | 159 |
2021 | 113 |
2022 | 74 |
2023 | 49 |
2024 | 40 |
2025 and beyond | 54 |
Total | $ | 489 |
We guarantee obligations of certain outside third parties, consisting primarily of leases, debt 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 September 28, 2019, was $14 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 10 years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is $93 million, all of which could be recoverable through various recourse provisions, including those based on the fair value of the underlying leased assets. The likelihood of material payments under these guarantees is not considered probable. At September 28, 2019, and September 29, 2018, no significant 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 potential 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 September 28, 2019, was approximately $300 million. The total receivables under these programs were $5 million and $6 million at September 28, 2019 and September 29, 2018, respectively. These receivables are included, net of allowance for uncollectible amounts, in Accounts Receivable in our Consolidated 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 had no allowance for these programs' estimated uncollectible receivables at September 28, 2019, and September 29, 2018. When constructing new facilities or making major enhancements to existing facilities, we will occasionally enter into incentive agreements with local government agencies in order to reduce certain state and local tax expenditures. Under these agreements, we transfer the related assets to various local government entities and receive Industrial Revenue Bonds. We immediately lease the facilities from the local government entities and have an option to re-purchase the facilities for a nominal amount upon tendering the Industrial Revenue Bonds to the local government entities at various predetermined dates. The Industrial Revenue Bonds and the associated obligations for the leases of the facilities offset, and the underlying assets remain in property, plant and equipment. At September 28, 2019, total amounts under these types of arrangements totaled $698 million. We enter into agreements with livestock growers that can have fixed and variable payment structures, but are generally cancelable and based on flocks placed with growers. Livestock grower fixed or estimable non-cancelable commitments at September 28, 2019 were:
| in millions |
| Livestock Grower Commitments |
2020 | $ | 253 |
2021 | 131 |
2022 | 86 |
2023 | 58 |
2024 | 49 |
2025 and beyond | 122 |
Total | $ | 699 |
Additionally, we enter into other purchase commitments for various items such as grains and livestock contracts, which at September 28, 2019 were:
| in millions |
| Other Purchase Commitments |
2020 | $ | 2,466 |
2021 | 311 |
2022 | 198 |
2023 | 43 |
2024 | 19 |
2025 and beyond | 23 |
Total | $ | 3,060 |
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 in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements for matters to the extent that we conclude a loss is probable and the financial impact, should an adverse outcome occur, is reasonably estimable. Additionally, for matters in which losses are reasonably possible, no reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made because, among other reasons: (i) the proceedings are in preliminary stages; (ii) specific damages have not been sought; (iii) damage claims are unsupported and/or unreasonable; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; or (vi) novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories are being asserted. In our opinion, we have made appropriate and adequate accruals for these matters. While these accruals reflect the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss for those matters as of the dates of those accruals, the recorded amounts may differ materially from the actual amount of the losses for those matters. 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 Financial Statements. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims made and intend to vigorously defend these matters. On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own behalf and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Since the original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions. The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs also allege that defendants “manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the Georgia Dock.” The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative classes. Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions likely to be filed by defendants are currently expected in late calendar year 2020 and early 2021. If necessary, trial will occur after rulings on class certification and any summary judgment motions. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified us that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") Antitrust Division issued a grand jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties in the civil case. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the civil action, which the court granted in part. Subsequently, we received a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the chicken industry. We are fully cooperating with the DOJ’s request. On October 16, 2019, the court extended the limited stay of discovery in the civil action through June 27, 2020. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has also initiated a civil lawsuit against us, certain of our subsidiaries, and several other poultry processing companies alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws. This lawsuit has been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. On March 1, 2017, we received a civil investigative demand ("CID") from the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, of the State of Florida. The CID requests information primarily related to possible anticompetitive conduct in connection with the Georgia Dock, a chicken products pricing index formerly published by the Georgia Department of Agriculture. We have been cooperating with the Attorney General’s office. In July 2019, the Attorney General issued a subpoena to the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation plaintiffs requesting all information provided to the DOJ. On August 18, 2019, we were advised that the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation plaintiffs had received a CID from the Louisiana Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Public Protection Division. The Louisiana CID requests all deposition transcripts related to the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our pork subsidiaries, as well as several other pork processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court. The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. Since the original filing, a putative class member is proceeding with an individual direct action making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. The individual complaint has been filed in the District of Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative classes. On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in which the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in violation of state and federal antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws, and the plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative classes. We intend to respond to the amended complaints. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has also initiated a civil lawsuit against us, certain of our subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws. This lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and remains pending with an amended complaint due on or before December 6, 2019. On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against us and our beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis, importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand, and closing and idling plants. In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district courts. All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. Following the filing of defendants’ motion to dismiss this matter, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4, 2019. On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against us, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information services provider, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Agri-Stats was subsequently dismissed from the suit. The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief. The defendants’ motions to dismiss this matter are pending. The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al. On October 16, 2019, a direct purchaser of beef, on behalf of itself and other direct purchasers of beef, filed a class action complaint against us and other beef packer defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to reduce slaughter capacity by closing and idling plants, limiting their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers, so as to reduce beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement, acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. An additional complaint making similar allegations was also filed by Emily Earnest. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Following the consolidation, two additional lawsuits have been filed by individuals making similar allegations. 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 was 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 alleges, among other things, that the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in connection with the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines in 1995 by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The Hillshire Brands Company. In late 2004, a labor arbiter ruled against the respondents and awarded the complainants PHP 3,453,664,710 (approximately U.S. $66 million) in damages and fees. The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Subsequent to the NLRC’s decision, the parties filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of which remained outstanding for several years. While various of those appeals, motions and/or petitions were pending, The Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without admitting liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of all claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange for payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an amount not to exceed PHP 342,287,800 (approximately U.S. $6.6 million). Based in part on its finding that the consideration to be paid to the complainants as part of such settlement was insufficient, the Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the respondents’ settlement motion and all motions for reconsideration thereof. The Supreme Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature the NLRC’s December 2006 ruling. As a result, the cases were remanded back before the NLRC to rule on the merits of the case. On December 15, 2016, we learned that the NLRC rendered its decision on November 29, 2016, regarding the respondents’ appeals regarding the labor arbiter’s 2004 ruling in favor of the complainants. The NLRC increased the award for 4,922 of the total 5,984 complainants to PHP 14,858,495,937 (approximately U.S. $285 million). However, the NLRC approved a prior settlement reached with the group comprising approximately 18% of the class of 5,984 complainants, pursuant to which The Hillshire Brands Company agreed to pay each settling complainant PHP 68,000 (approximately U.S. $1,300). The settlement payment was made on December 21, 2016, to the NLRC, which is responsible for distributing the funds to each settling complainant. On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions for reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set aside. The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in a resolution received on May 5, 2017 and entered a judgment on the award on July 24, 2017. Each of Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. appealed this award and sought an injunction to preclude enforcement of the award to the Philippines Court of Appeals. On November 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a writ of preliminary injunction that precluded execution of the NLRC award during the pendency of the appeal. The Court of Appeals subsequently vacated the NLRC’s award on April 12, 2018. Complainants have filed motions for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. On November 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied claimants’ motions for reconsideration and granted defendants’ motion to release and discharge the preliminary injunction bond. Claimants have since filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has accepted the case for review. We continue to maintain an accrual for this matter. The Hillshire Brands Company was named as a defendant in an asbestos exposure case filed by Mark Lopez in May 2014 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California. Mr. Lopez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2014 and is now deceased. Mr. Lopez’s family members asserted negligence, premises liability and strict liability claims related to Mr. Lopez’s alleged asbestos exposure from 1954-1986 from the Union Sugar plant in Betteravia, California. The plant, which was sold in 1986, was owned by entities that were predecessors-in-interest to The Hillshire Brands Company. In August 2017, the jury returned a verdict of approximately $13 million in favor of the plaintiffs, and a judgment was entered. We appealed the judgment, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in full.

X
- References No definition available. + 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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration