v3.25.4

Commitments And Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 27, 2025
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 6 years, and the maximum potential amount of future payments as of December 27, 2025, was not significant. The likelihood of material payments under these guarantees is not considered probable. At December 27, 2025 and September 27, 2025, 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 December 27, 2025 was approximately $155 million. At December 27, 2025 and September 27, 2025, we did not have significant net receivables outstanding under these programs. 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. These funds are generally considered restricted cash, which is reported in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets in Other Assets. We had no deposits at December 27, 2025 and September 27, 2025. 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 December 27, 2025, the total amount under these types of arrangements totaled $787 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. The Company further determines whether a range of possible loss, if any, in excess of the recorded accrual 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. Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation and Related Matters Beginning in September 2016, a series of putative 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 and Agri Stats, Inc. ("Agri Stats"), an information service provider. As described below, the Company reached agreements to settle all outstanding claims brought against it by the putative classes, and the Court has granted final approval to these settlements. Certain putative class members chose to opt out of the classes and pursue individual claims against the Company and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The operative complaints allege that beginning in January 2008, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens and that the defendants manipulated and artificially inflated the Georgia Dock price index. 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 under the United States antitrust laws and various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The Court divided the case into two tracks. Plaintiffs electing to proceed in the first track (“Track One”) chose to forego claims relating to the DOJ criminal investigation described below. Plaintiffs electing to proceed in the second track (“Track Two”) could pursue those claims but needed to wait until the completion of the Track One proceedings before doing so. The first trial in this matter, which involved claims brought by the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class and certain direct-action plaintiffs, began on September 12, 2023 and concluded with a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on October 25, 2023. The Company did not participate in the first trial because it had previously settled all of the claims brought by the plaintiffs that participated in that trial. The second and third scheduled trials in this matter, which were to involve claims brought by the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Class and the End-User Consumer Plaintiff Class, respectively, were scheduled to begin in March 2024 and September 2024, respectively. Both of these trials were cancelled because all claims brought by these classes were resolved before trial. This completed the Track One proceedings. On February 11, 2025, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the allegations brought by the Track Two plaintiffs. On March 7, 2025, the Court lifted the stay of discovery that had applied to the Track Two claims, with fact discovery currently ongoing. The Court entered a case schedule under which the first Track Two trial will begin in September 2027. 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 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 have opted 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 we have entered into have been 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 cooperating with the DOJ as part of our application for leniency under the DOJ’s Corporate Leniency Program. Subsequently, the DOJ 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. None of these indictments remain pending. 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 cooperate with the DOJ, neither the Company nor any of our cooperating employees will face prosecution or criminal fines or penalties. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ in connection with the ongoing federal antitrust investigation. State Attorney General Matters. The Offices of the Attorneys General in Washington, New Mexico and Alaska have filed complaints against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies and Agri Stats based on allegations similar to those asserted in the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation. These complaints alleged violations of state antitrust, unfair trade practice, and unjust enrichment laws. We are cooperating with various state governmental agencies and officials, including the Offices of the Attorneys 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. In October 2022, we reached an agreement to settle all claims with the Washington Attorney General, and the court entered a consent decree on October 24, 2022. On February 16, 2024, the Company and the State of Alaska filed a stipulation and proposed consent decree reflecting a settlement of the claims against the Company asserted by the Office of the Attorney General of Alaska. The court approved this settlement on April 24, 2024. On April 19, 2024, the Company and the State of New Mexico filed a proposed consent judgment reflecting a settlement of the claims against the Company asserted by the Office of the Attorney General of New Mexico. The Court approved this settlement on July 23, 2024. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims that have been made, we believe that these settlements are in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. The legal contingency accrual for claims related to the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation matters described above was $64 million a t December 27, 2025 and September 27, 2025. During the three months ended December 27, 2025 and December 28, 2024, the Company did not record any contingency accruals for claims related to these matters. Additionally, during the first quarter of fiscal 2025, the Company reduced its total recorded legal contingency accrual by $21 million for amounts it had paid related to these matters. The Company does not believe that a range of possible loss, if any, in excess of the recorded accrual is reasonably estimable at this time. However, if facts and circumstances of the matter or assumptions based on present conditions used to determine our estimated liability were to significantly change, we may be exposed to additional material losses. 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 try to do so in the future. 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. On October 18, 2024, we reached a settlement with the State of Alaska to resolve all claims made against the Company for an immaterial amount. The court approved the settlement on January 7, 2025. On May 9, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the State of New Mexico to resolve all claims made against the Company for an immaterial amount. The court approved the settlement on August 11, 2025. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims that have been made, we believe that this settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. In the third quarter of fiscal 2024, we filed and joined motions for summary judgment. On March 31, 2025, the court denied those summary judgment motions as to the claims against the Company. The Company anticipates multiple trials in this matter in various federal districts, with various classes of plaintiffs as well as opt-out plaintiffs, with the first trial expected to begin in fiscal 2026. While we believe we have valid and meritorious defenses to the claims that have been made in the Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation, we have entered into and are further exploring the possibility of entering into settlements with plaintiff classes and opt-out plaintiffs in the Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation and related matters as a way to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. On April 11, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the direct purchase class plaintiffs to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $50 million. On April 28, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement. On September 25, 2025, the Company reached an agreement with the consumer indirect purchaser class to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $85 million. On November 7, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement. On December 31, 2025, the Company executed an agreement with the commercial and institutional indirect plaintiff class to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $48 million. This agreement is subject to court approval. At December 27, 2025 and September 27, 2025, the legal contingency accrual for claims related to the Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation matter described above was $206 million and $268 million, respectively. During the three months ended December 27, 2025, the Company increased the contingency accrual for claims related to this matter by $60 million and made $122 million of payments. During the three months ended December 28, 2024, the Company did not record any contingency accruals or make any payments for claims related to these matters. The Company does not believe that a range of possible loss, if any, in excess of the recorded accrual is reasonably estimable at this time. However, if facts and circumstances of the matter or assumptions based on present conditions used to determine our estimated liability were to significantly change, we may be exposed to additional material losses. Beef Antitrust Litigation and Related Matters Beginning on April 23, 2019, a series of class action complaints were filed against us and our beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (“Tyson Fresh Meats”), as well as other beef packer defendants, in various federal district courts, including the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, by putative classes of direct purchasers, cattle ranchers, indirect purchasers, and indirect cattle producers. The putative classes in these cases allege that the defendants engaged in one or more conspiracies beginning in roughly January 2015 with the aim of reducing fed cattle prices, manipulating the price of live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, artificially increasing the cost of beef, and reducing the price of cows, cattle, calves, steers or heifers. The putative classes allege that this conduct violated federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, the Commodities Exchange Act, and various state unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. Their complaints seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. 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. These cases have been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for pretrial purposes. The fact discovery phase ended in early April 2025, and the parties are now engaged in expert discovery. Additionally, the putative classes filed motions for class certification on September 25, 2024, which remain pending before the court. On September 29, 2025, the Company reached an agreement with the consumer indirect purchaser plaintiff class to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $55 million. The Court granted preliminary approval to this settlement on December 10, 2025. On December 12, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the direct purchaser plaintiff class to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $80 million plus $2.5 million in administrative expenses, subject to court approval. Also on December 12, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the commercial and institutional indirect plaintiff class to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $47 million, subject to court approval. 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 putative class is comprised of direct and indirect beef purchasers in Canada between January 1, 2015 and the present, and 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. The complaint alleges a violation of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the Civil Code of Québec. It 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, raising substantially similar allegations and seeking compensatory damages, costs of investigation and interest. While we believe we have valid and meritorious defenses to the claims that have been made in the Beef Antitrust Civil Litigation and related matters, we have entered into and continue to explore opportunities to reach settlements if it would be in the best interest of the Company, as doing so could avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. We have received civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) from the DOJ’s Civil Antitrust Division. The CIDs request information related to the Company’s beef business. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ with respect to the CIDs. At December 27, 2025 and September 27, 2025, the legal contingency accrual for claims related to the Beef Antitrust Civil Litigation matter described above was $353 million and $318 million, respectively. During the three months ended December 27, 2025, the Company increased the contingency accrual for claims related to this matter by $90 million and made $55 million of payments. During the three months ended December 28, 2024, the Company did not record any contingency accruals or make any payments for claims related to these matters. The Company does not believe that a range of possible loss, if any, in excess of the recorded accrual is reasonably estimable at this time. However, if facts and circumstances of the matter or assumptions based on present conditions used to determine our estimated liability were to significantly change, we may be exposed to additional material losses. Wage Rate Litigation and Related Matters Poultry. 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. Additional lawsuits making similar allegations were consolidated including an amended consolidated complaint containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants naming additional defendants. Following mediation, on June 14, 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the putative class plaintiffs to settle all claims in the case for an aggregate amount of $115.5 million. On February 11, 2025, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, and on June 5, 2025, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. While we believe we had valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations, we also believe that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. During fiscal 2025, settlement payments of the accrued amount were paid as a result of the preliminary court approval. At September 27, 2025, there was no remaining accrual re lated to the Poultry wage rate litigation matter described above. In December 2025 and January 2026, three groups comprising in the aggregate of less than 300 individuals who had opted out of the Poultry wage rate litigation class filed complaints against the Company and other Poultry wage rate litigation defendants in the Circuit Courts of Barbour County and Bullock County, Alabama. The complaints repeat the essential factual allegations from the Poultry wage rate litigation but assert solely state-law claims. The Company believes it has valid and meritorious defenses against these allegations, and has not recorded any liability for these complaints as it does not believe a loss is probable, nor does it believe that a range of possible loss, if any, is reasonably estimable at this time. The DOJ’s Antitrust Division has opened a civil investigation into human resources at several poultry companies. We are cooperating with the investigation. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable, nor does it believe that a range of possible loss, if any, is reasonably estimable at this time. Fresh Meats. On November 11, 2022, a putative class of employees at beef-processing and pork-processing plants in the continental United States filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our subsidiaries, as well as several other beef-processing and pork-processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 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 employees in violation of federal antitrust laws. On December 22, 2023, after a mediation between the parties, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the putative class plaintiffs to settle their claims against the Company. While we believe we have valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations, we believe that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay the putative class an aggregate amount of $72.5 million to completely resolve all claims made against the Company in this matter. The court approved the settlement on January 15, 2025, which was paid during the second quarter of fiscal 2025. 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 $59 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 $253 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 $1,155. The parties filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions for review related to the NLRC award and settlement payment. The Court of Appeals of the Philippines subsequently vacated the NLRC’s award on April 12, 2018. Complainants 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 have been accepted. The Company continues to maintain an accrual in an immaterial amount for estimated probable losses for this matter in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company does not believe that a range of possible loss, if any, in excess of the recorded accrual is reasonably estimable at this time. For a tax-related matter involving the Company, refer to Part I, Item 1. Notes to the Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements, Note 8: Income Tax. 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, nor does it believe that a range of possible loss, if any, is reasonably estimable at this time, because it believes the allegations in the claims are without merit and that the Company has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations.

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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration