XML 28 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.1.1.u2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Apr. 28, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE I - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Except as described below, there were no material changes outside the ordinary course of business during the quarter and six months ended April 28, 2024, to the contractual obligations and other commitments last disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 29, 2023. Legal Proceedings: The Company is a party to various legal proceedings related to the ongoing operation of its business, including claims both by and against the Company. At any time, such proceedings typically involve claims related to product liability, labeling, contracts, antitrust regulations, intellectual property, competition laws, employment practices, or other actions brought by employees, customers, consumers, competitors, or suppliers. The Company establishes accruals for its potential exposure, as appropriate, for claims against the Company when losses become probable and reasonably estimable. However, future developments or settlements are uncertain and may require the Company to change such accruals as proceedings progress. Resolution of any currently known matter, either individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Pork Antitrust Litigation Beginning in June 2018, a series of putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, as well as several other pork-processing companies and a benchmarking service called Agri Stats, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation (the Pork Antitrust 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—including through the use of Agri Stats—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. Class Plaintiffs consist of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, and Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. Since the original filing, certain non-class direct-action plaintiffs have opted out of class treatment and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. Although the Company strongly denies liability, continues to deny the allegations asserted by the Class Plaintiffs, and believes it has valid defenses, to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense, and distraction of continued litigation involving the Class Plaintiffs, the Company agreed to settle with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs for $4.9 million, the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs for $2.4 million, and the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs for $4.5 million. These proposed settlements were filed with the Court on April 5, 2024, and are subject to final approval by the Court. The settlement amounts were recorded in Selling, General, and Administrative in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and as an Accrued Expense on the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Financial Position for the second quarter of fiscal 2024 and are expected to be paid following final Court approval. The Company intends to continue vigorously defending against non-class claims not resolved by these three individual Class settlements. The Offices of the Attorney General in New Mexico and Alaska, as non-class plaintiffs, have separately filed state-court complaints against the Company and certain of its 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 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 non-class matters as it does not believe a loss is probable, and it cannot reasonably estimate any reasonably possible loss as the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations. Turkey Antitrust Litigation Beginning in December 2019, a series of putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, as well as several other turkey-processing companies and a benchmarking service called Agri Stats, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois styled In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that from at least 2010 to 2017, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of turkey products—including through the use of Agri Stats—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. Since the original filing, certain direct-action plaintiffs have opted out of class treatment 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 these matters as it does not believe a loss is probable, and it cannot reasonably estimate any reasonably possible loss as the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations. Poultry Wages Antitrust Litigation In December 2019, a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at poultry-processing plants in the continental U.S. filed an amended consolidated class action complaint against Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. and various other poultry processing companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland styled Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al. The plaintiffs allege that since 2009, the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding compensation in an effort to depress and fix wages and benefits for employees at poultry-processing plants, feed mills, and hatcheries 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. In July 2022, the Court partially granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed plaintiffs’ per se wage-fixing claim as to the Company. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable, and it cannot reasonably estimate any reasonably possible loss as the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations. Red Meat Wages Antitrust Litigation In November 2022, a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at “red meat” processing plants in the continental U.S. filed a class action complaint against the Company and various other beef- and pork-processing companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado styled Brown, et al. v. JBS USA Food Co., et al. The plaintiffs allege that since 2014, the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding compensation in an effort to depress and fix wages and benefits for employees at beef- and pork-processing plants 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 Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable, and it cannot reasonably estimate any reasonably possible loss as the Company believes that it 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/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 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: 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//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: 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 5: 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