XML 34 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.1

Commitments And Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Apr. 02, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments We guarantee obligations of certain outside third parties, consisting primarily of grower loans, which are substantially collateralized by the underlying assets. The remaining terms of the underlying obligations cover periods up to 9 years, and the maximum potential amount of future payments as of April 2, 2022, was not significant. The likelihood of material payments under these guarantees is not considered probable. At April 2, 2022 and October 2, 2021, 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 maximum commitment associated with these programs is limited to the fair value of each participating livestock supplier’s net tangible assets. The potential maximum commitment as of April 2, 2022 was approximately $295 million. The total receivables under these programs were $5 million at April 2, 2022 and October 2, 2021. 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 April 2, 2022, and October 2, 2021. 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. Certain arrangements may require cash to be deposited into a fund to cover future expenditures. These funds are generally considered restricted cash, which is reported in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets in Other Assets. We had no deposits at April 2, 2022 and $3 million of deposits at October 2, 2021. Additionally, under certain 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 April 2, 2022, the total amount under these types of arrangements totaled $717 million. Contingencies In the normal course of business, we are involved in various claims, lawsuits, investigations and legal proceedings, including those specifically identified below. Each quarter, we determine whether to accrue for loss contingencies based on our assessment of whether the potential loss is probable, reasonably possible or remote and to the extent a loss is probable, whether it is reasonably estimable. We record accruals in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements for matters that we conclude are probable and the financial impact is reasonably estimable. Regardless of the manner of resolution, frequently the most significant changes in the status of a matter may occur over a short time period, often following a lengthy period of little substantive activity. 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 for which the magnitude of the potential exposure could be material to the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. There were no significant changes to our loss contingency accruals reflected in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended April 2, 2022. Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation Beginning in September 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation (the “Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation”) were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies. The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the litigation, contain allegations that, among other things, assert 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 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. In addition, the complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. 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. Settlements On January 19, 2021, we announced that we had reached agreements to settle certain class claims related to the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation. Settlement terms were reached with the putative Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class, the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class and the putative End-User Plaintiff Class (collectively, the “Classes”). Under the terms of the settlements, we agreed to pay the Classes an aggregate amount of $221.5 million in settlement of all outstanding claims brought by the Classes. On February 23, 2021, March 22, 2021 and October 15, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlements with the putative Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class, the putative End-User Plaintiff Class and the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class, respectively. On June 29, 2021, December 20, 2021 and April 18, 2022, the Court granted final approval to the settlements with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class, the End-User Plaintiff Class and the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class, respectively. The foregoing settlements do not settle claims made by plaintiffs who opt out of the Classes in the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation. We are currently pursuing settlement discussions with the remaining opt-out plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims. While we do not admit any liability as part of the settlements, we believe that the settlements were in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. Government Investigations U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation, 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. On June 2, 2020, a grand jury for the District of Colorado returned an indictment charging four individual executives employed by two other poultry processing companies with conspiracy to engage in bid-rigging in violation of federal antitrust laws. On June 10, 2020, we announced that we uncovered information in connection with the grand jury subpoena that we had previously self-reported to the DOJ and have been fully cooperating with the DOJ as part of our application for leniency under the DOJ’s Corporate Leniency Program. Subsequently, the DOJ has announced indictments against additional individuals, as well as other poultry processing companies, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products from at least 2012 until at least early 2019. In August 2021, the Company was granted conditional leniency by the DOJ for the matters we self-reported, which means that provided the Company continues to fully cooperate with the DOJ, neither the Company nor any of our cooperating employees will face prosecution or criminal fines or penalties. We continue to fully cooperate with the DOJ in connection with the ongoing federal antitrust investigation. State Matters. The Offices of the Attorney General in New Mexico, Alaska and Washington have filed complaints against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies and Agri Stats, Inc., an information services provider (“Agri Stats”). The complaints are based on allegations similar to those asserted in the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation and allege violations of state antitrust, unfair trade practice, and unjust enrichment laws. The Company has not recorded any liability for the foregoing matters as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time because the proceedings are in preliminary stages. In addition, we are fully cooperating with various state governmental agencies and officials, including the Offices of the Attorney General for Florida and Louisiana, investigating or otherwise seeking information, testimony and/or documents, regarding the conduct alleged in the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation and related matters. Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation On January 27, 2017 and March 26, 2017, putative class action complaints were filed against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services “with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels.” The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants “agreed to share detailed data on [g]rower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing [g]rower compensation below competitive levels.” The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative class. Additional named plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints in federal district courts in North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and California. All actions were subsequently consolidated in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. In June 2021, we reached an agreement to settle with the putative class of broiler chicken farmers all claims raised in this consolidated action on terms not material to the Company for which the Company recorded an accrual in its Consolidated Financial Statements as of October 2, 2021. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on August 23, 2021 and final approval on February 18, 2022. Pork Antitrust Litigation Beginning June 18, 2018, a series of putative class action complaints were filed 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 styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation (the “Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation”). The plaintiffs 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 federal 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. 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. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable because the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations and because the classes have not yet been defined or certified by the court. The Offices of the Attorney General in New Mexico and Alaska have filed complaints against us and certain of our pork subsidiaries, as well as several other pork processing companies and Agri Stats. The complaints are based on allegations similar to those asserted in the Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation and allege violations of state antitrust, unfair trade practice, and unjust enrichment laws based on allegations of conspiracies to exchange information and manipulate the supply of pork. The Company has not recorded any liability for the foregoing matters as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time because the proceedings are in preliminary stages. Beef Antitrust Litigation On April 23, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against us and our beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (“Tyson Fresh Meats”), 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. Other similar lawsuits were filed by cattle ranchers in other district courts which were then transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and consolidated and styled as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. On February 18, 2021, we moved to dismiss the amended complaints, and on September 23, 2021, the court granted the motion with respect to certain state law claims but denied the motion with respect to the plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claims. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time because the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations and because the classes have not yet been defined or certified by the court. On April 26, 2019, a putative class of indirect purchasers filed a class action complaint against us, other beef packers, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 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 indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al. Additional complaints have been filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of beef containing allegations of violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, and stabilize the wholesale price for beef, as well as on behalf of a putative class of commercial and institutional indirect purchasers of beef containing allegations of violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially inflate the price for beef. On February 18, 2021, we moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaints, and on September 23, 2021, the court granted the motion with respect to certain state law claims but denied the motion with respect to the plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claims. 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. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time because the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations and because the classes have not yet been defined or certified by the court. On February 18, 2022, a putative class action was commenced against us, Tyson Fresh Meats, and other beef packer defendants in the Supreme Court of British Columbia styled Bui v. Cargill, Incorporated et al. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, maintain, increase, or control the price of beef, as well as to fix, maintain, control, prevent, or lessen the production or supply of beef by agreeing to reduce the number of cattle slaughtered, reduce slaughter capacity, refrain from increasing slaughter and beef processing capacity, limit purchases of cattle on the cash market, and coordinate purchases of and bids for cattle to lower the supply of fed cattle. The plaintiff advances causes of action under the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and the Civil Code of Québec. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class comprised of all persons or entities in Canada who directly or indirectly purchased beef in Canada, either for resale or for their own consumption between January 1, 2015, and the present and seeks declarations regarding the alleged conspiracy, general damages, aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and interest. On March 24, 2022, a putative class action was commenced against the same defendants in the Superior Court of Québec styled De Bellefeuille v. Cargill, Incorporated et al. The plaintiff is making substantially the same allegations as those made in the British Columbia action. On behalf of the putative class of persons who purchased beef in Québec since January 1, 2015, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, costs of investigation and interest. The Company has not recorded any liability for the foregoing matters as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time because the proceedings are in preliminary stages. On May 22, 2020, December 23, 2020 and October 29, 2021, we received civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) from the DOJ’s Civil Antitrust Division. The CIDs request information related to the fed cattle and beef packing markets. We have been cooperating with the DOJ with respect to the CIDs. The Offices of the Attorney General for multiple states are participating in the investigation and coordinating with the DOJ. We recently received a subpoena dated April 21, 2022 from the New York Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Frauds & Protection seeking information regarding our sales, prices and production costs of beef, pork and chicken products. We are currently evaluating the scope of the subpoena. Wage Rate Litigation On August 30, 2019, a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants in the continental United States filed class action complaints 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. 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. Additional lawsuits making similar allegations were consolidated including an amended consolidated complaint containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants naming additional defendants. We moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On September 16, 2020, the court dismissed claims against us and certain other defendants without prejudice because the complaint improperly grouped together corporate subsidiaries. The court otherwise denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and sustained claims based on alleged conspiracies to fix wages and exchange information against five other defendants. The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint on November 2, 2020. We moved to dismiss the complaint on December 18, 2020 based on a lack of standing to assert claims on behalf of the purported class. The court denied the motion to dismiss on March 10, 2021. On February 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated complaint naming additional poultry processors as defendants and expanding the scope of the claims to include employees at hatcheries and feed mills. We moved to dismiss the claims related to hatchery and feed mill employees. The motion to dismiss is currently pending. In the third quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company recorded an accrual for the estimated probable losses that it expects to incur for this matter in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. The DOJ’s Antitrust Division has opened a civil investigation into poultry human resources. We will fully cooperate with the investigation. Other Matters 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 approximately $68 million in damages and fees. From 2004 through 2014, the parties filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of which remained outstanding for several years. On December 15, 2016, we learned that the NLRC rendered its decision on November 29, 2016, regarding the respondents’ appeals from 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 approximately $292 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 approximately $1,300. The parties filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions for review related to the NLRC award and settlement payment. 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 which were denied. Claimants have since filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which has accepted. The Company continues to maintain an accrual for estimated probable losses for this matter in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Various claims have been asserted against the Company, its subsidiaries, and its officers and agents by, and on behalf of, team members who claim to have contracted COVID-19 in our facilities. The Company has not recorded any liability for these matters as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time because it believes the allegations in the claims are without merit.

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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration