XML 44 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General We are a party to many routine contracts in which we provide general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, we have not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities as based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Purchase Obligations The Company will sometimes enter into noncancelable contracts to purchase capital equipment and certain commodities such as corn, soybean meal, and electricity. At December 31, 2017, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $346.7 million and less than $0.1 million payable in 2018 and 2019, respectively. There were no outstanding purchase contracts in 2019. Operating Leases The Consolidated and Combined Statements of Income include rental expense for operating leases of approximately $59.0 million, $56.9 million and $32.1 million in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The Company’s future minimum lease commitments under noncancelable operating leases are as follows (in thousands):
2018 |  | $ | 54,961 |
2019 |  | 47,007 |
2020 |  | 37,043 |
2021 |  | 31,219 |
2022 |  | 26,332 |
Thereafter |  | 38,206 |
Total |  | $ | 234,768 |
Certain of the Company’s operating leases include rent escalations. The Company includes the rent escalation in its minimum lease payments obligations and recognizes them as a component of rental expense on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease term. The Company also maintains operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of assets at the end of the term of the lease. The terms of the lease maturities range from one to ten years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is estimated to be approximately $48.5 million; however, the actual amount would be offset by any recoverable amount based on the fair market value of the underlying leased assets. No liability has been recorded related to this contingency as the likelihood of payments under these guarantees is not considered to be probable and the fair value of such guarantees is immaterial. The Company historically has not experienced significant payments under similar residual guarantees. Financial Instruments The Company’s loan agreements generally obligate the Company to reimburse the applicable lender for incremental increased costs due to a change in law that imposes (i) any reserve or special deposit requirement against assets of, deposits with or credit extended by such lender related to the loan, (ii) any tax, duty or other charge with respect to the loan (except standard income tax) or (iii) capital adequacy requirements. In addition, some of the Company’s loan agreements contain a withholding tax provision that requires the Company to pay additional amounts to the applicable lender or other financing party, generally if withholding taxes are imposed on such lender or other financing party as a result of a change in the applicable tax law. These increased cost and withholding tax provisions continue for the entire term of the applicable transaction, and there is no limitation on the maximum additional amounts the Company could be obligated to pay under such provisions. Any failure to pay amounts due under such provisions generally would trigger an event of default, and, in a secured financing transaction, would entitle the lender to foreclose upon the collateral to realize the amount due. Litigation We are a party to many routine contracts in which we provide general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, we have not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities as based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the Company’s opinion, it has made appropriate and adequate accruals for claims where necessary; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if significantly different than the amounts accrued, the ultimate outcome could have a material effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. For a discussion of the material legal proceedings and claims, see Part II, Item 1. “Legal Proceedings.” Below is a summary of some of these material proceedings and claims. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made and intends to vigorously defend these cases. Tax Claims and Proceedings In 2009, the IRS asserted claims against Pilgrim’s Pride in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, or the Bankruptcy Court, totaling $74.7 million. Following a series of objections and motions of opposition filed by both parties with the Bankruptcy Court, the Company worked with the IRS through the normal processes and procedures that are available to resolve the IRS’ claims. On December 12, 2012, the Company entered into two Stipulation of Settled Issues agreements with the IRS, or the Stipulations. The first Stipulation related to the Company’s 2003, 2005, and 2007 tax years and resolved all of the material issues in the case. The second Stipulation related to the Company as the successor in interest to Gold Kist Inc., or Gold Kist, for the tax years ended June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005, and resolved all substantive issues in the case. These Stipulations accounted for approximately $29.3 million of the claims and should result in no additional tax due. the Company is currently working with the IRS to finalize the complete tax calculations associated with the Stipulations. A Mexico subsidiary of the Company is currently appealing an unfavorable tax adjustment proposed by Mexican Tax Authorities due to an examination of a specific transaction undertaken by the Mexico subsidiary during tax years 2009 and 2010. At the time of the transaction the Company obtained a “should” level opinion from outside legal counsel representing no additional tax due as a result of the transaction. However, in February 2018, the Company received a new assessment from external legal counsel indicating an unfavorable outcome to the Company as reasonably possible. Amounts under appeal are $24.3 million and $16.1 million for tax years 2009 and 2010, respectively. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time. Other Claims and Proceedings Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. The defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss these actions. On November 20, 2017, the court denied all pending motions to dismiss with the exception of certain state-law claims by indirect purchasers that were dismissed or narrowed in scope. Discovery is proceeding and is currently scheduled to be complete by June 13, 2019. In December 2017 and January 2018 four individual complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al; Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; and U.S. Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al; Case No. 1:18-cv-00702) were filed, mirroring the class action complaints. The class complaints were answered in January 2018. A schedule for answers to the individual complaints will be set and the court has indicated it intends to coordinate scheduling for the individual complaints with the class complaints to the greatest extent possible. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of the Company’s stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by the Company’s failure to disclose that (i) the Company colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) the Company’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting, as well as stating that the Company’s industry was anticompetitive. On April 4, 2017, the court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On April 26, 2017, the court set a briefing schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. Defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. As of the date of this offering memorandum, the Colorado Court’s decision on the motion is pending. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against the Company and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS. The defendants, including the Company, jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. During oral argument on January 19, 2018, the court considered and granted other defendants’ motions challenging jurisdiction and, as a result, granted the plaintiffs time to determine whether they will proceed forward with the case or dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs have until Friday, February 2, 2018 to inform the district court of their plan course of action, and oral argument on remaining motions will be scheduled as necessary. In addition, on August 29, 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Enforce Confirmation Order Against Growers in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern district of Texas, seeking an order enjoining the In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation plaintiffs from pursuing the class action against the Company. A hearing on this motion was held in October 2017 and a second is scheduled for February 13, 2018. As of the date of this offering memorandum, a court decision on this motion is pending. On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action styled as DiSalvio v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30207, was brought against all of the Company’s directors and its Chief Financial Officer, Fabio Sandri, in the District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent the Company and its officers from engaging in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, and issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation. On April 17, 2017, a related stockholder derivative action styled Brima v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30308, was brought against all of the Company’s directors and its Chief Financial Officer in the District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado. The Brima complaint contains largely the same allegations as the DiSalvio complaint. On May 4, 2017, the plaintiffs in both the DiSalvio and Brima actions moved to (i) consolidate the two stockholder derivative cases, (ii) stay the consolidated action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan putative securities class action, and (iii) appoint co-lead counsel. The court granted the motion on May 8, 2017, staying the proceedings pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan action. On January 10, 2018 a shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the the Company, as nominal defendant, as well as the Company’s directors, its Chief Financial Officer, and majority shareholder JBS S.A. in Raul v. Nogueira de Souza, et al., Civil Action No. 18-cv-00069. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) defendants permitted the Company to omit material information from its proxy statements filed in 2014 through 2017 related to the conduct of former directors Wesley Mendonça Batista and Joesley Mendonça Batista and (ii) the individual defendants and JBS breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent the Company and its officers from engaging in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the Broiler Litigation and issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation. The defendants are currently in discussions with counsel for the Raul plaintiffs regarding the possibility of consolidating the Raul action with the consolidated state court derivative action, which is currently stayed, or in the alternative, determining a motion to dismiss briefing schedule. On January 25, 2018 a stockholder derivative action styled as Sciabacucchi v. JBS S.A.et al., was brought against all of the Company’s directors, JBS S.A., JBS USA Holding and several members of the Batista family, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Moy Park Acquisition. The Company believes it has strong defenses in each of the above litigations and intends to contest them vigorously. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions nor when they will be resolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in any of these litigations, the Company could be liable for damages, which could be material and could adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. J&F Investigation On May 3, 2017, certain officers of J&F Investimentos S.A. (“J&F,” and the companies controlled by J&F, the “J&F Group”) (including two former directors of the Company), a company organized in Brazil and an indirect controlling stockholder of the Company, entered into plea bargain agreements (the "Plea Bargain Agreements") with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministério Público Federal) ("MPF") in connection with certain illicit conduct involving improper payments made to Brazilian politicians, government officials and other individuals in Brazil committed by or on behalf of J&F and certain J&F Group companies. The details of such illicit conduct are set forth in separate annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements, and include admissions of improper payments to politicians and political parties in Brazil over the last 10 years in exchange for receiving, or attempting to receive, favorable treatment for certain J&F Group companies in Brazil. Pursuant to the terms of the Plea Bargain Agreements, the MPF agreed to grant immunity to the officers in exchange for such officers agreeing, among other considerations, to: (1) pay fines totaling R$225.0 million; (2) cooperate with the MPF, including providing supporting evidence of the illicit conduct identified in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements; and (3) present any previously undisclosed illicit conduct within 120 days following the execution of the Plea Bargain Agreements as long as the description of such conduct had not been omitted in bad faith. In addition, the Plea Bargain Agreements provide that the MPF may terminate any Plea Bargain Agreement and request that the Supreme Court of Brazil (Supremo Tribunal Federal) ("STF") ratify such termination if any illicit conduct is identified that was not included in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements. On June 5, 2017, J&F, in its role as the controlling shareholder of the J&F Group, entered into a leniency agreement (the "Leniency Agreement") with the MPF, whereby J&F assumed responsibility for the conduct that was described in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements. In connection with the Leniency Agreement, J&F has agreed to pay a fine of R$10.3 billion, adjusted for inflation, over a 25- year period. In exchange, the MPF agreed not to initiate or propose any criminal, civil or administrative actions against J&F, the companies of the J&F Group or those officers of J&F with respect to such conduct. Pursuant to the terms of the Leniency Agreement, if the Plea Bargain Agreement is annulled by the STF, then the Leniency Agreement may also be terminated by the Fifth Chamber of Coordination and Reviews of the MPF or, solely with respect to the criminal related provisions of the Leniency Agreement, by the 10th Federal Court of the Federal District in Brasilia, the authorities responsible for the ratification of the Leniency Agreement. On August 24, 2017, the Fifth Chamber ratified the Leniency Agreement. On September 8, 2017, the 10th Federal Court ratified the Leniency Agreement. In compliance with the terms of the Leniency Agreement, J&F is conducting an internal investigation involving improper payments made in Brazil by or on behalf of J&F, certain companies of the J&F Group and certain officers of J&F (including two former directors of the Company). J&F has engaged outside advisors to assist in conducting the investigation, including an assessment as to whether any of the misconduct disclosed to Brazilian authorities had any connection to the Company, or resulted in a violation of U.S. law. The internal investigation is ongoing and the Company is fully cooperating with J&F in connection with the investigation. We cannot predict when the investigation will be completed or the results of the investigation, including the outcome or impact of any government investigations or any resulting litigation. On September 8, 2017, at the request of the MPF, the STF issued an order temporarily revoking the immunity from prosecution previously granted to Joesley Mendonça Batista and another executive of J&F in connection with the Plea Bargain Agreements. The MPF requested the revocation of their immunity following public disclosure of certain voice recordings involving them in which they discussed certain alleged illicit activities the MPF claims were not covered by the annexes to their respective Plea Bargain Agreements. On September 10, 2017, Joesley Mendonça Batista voluntarily turned himself into police in Brazil. On September 11, 2017, the 10th Federal Court suspended its ratification of the criminal provisions of the Leniency Agreement as a result of the STF's temporary revocation of Joesley Mendonça Batista immunity under his Plea Bargain Agreement. On October 11, 2017, Judge Vallisney de Souza of the 10th Federal Court revalidated the criminal provisions of the Leniency Agreement. We cannot predict whether the Plea Bargain Agreements will be upheld or terminated by the STF, and, if terminated, whether the Leniency Agreement will be also terminated by either the Fifth Chamber and/or the 10th Federal Court, and to what extent. If the Leniency Agreement is terminated, in whole or in part, as a result of any Plea Bargain Agreement being terminated, this may materially adversely affect the public perception or reputation of the J&F Group, including the Company, and could have a material adverse effect on the J&F Group's business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, the termination of the Leniency Agreement may cause the termination of certain stabilization agreements entered into by JBS S.A. and certain of its subsidiaries, which would permit the lenders of the debt that is the subject to the terms of the stabilization agreements to accelerate their debt, which could have a material adverse effect on JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company).

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/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -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