XML 44 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General The Company is a party to many routine contracts in which it provide general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities because, 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, wheat and electricity. At December 30, 2018, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $433.8 million and $6.7 million payable in 2019 and 2020, respectively. There were no outstanding purchase contracts in 2021. Operating Leases The Consolidated and Combined Statements of Income include rental expense for operating leases of approximately $60.3 million, $59.0 million and $56.9 million in 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The Company’s future minimum lease commitments under noncancelable operating leases are as follows (in thousands):
2019 |  | $ | 84,220 |
2020 |  | 63,196 |
2021 |  | 53,908 |
2022 |  | 45,557 |
2023 |  | 36,136 |
Thereafter |  | 66,637 |
Total |  | $ | 349,654 |
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 $55.9 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 The Company is a party to many routine contracts in which it provides general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities because, 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 I, Item 3. “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 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. 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 federal 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 PPC 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 class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 2017 and January 2019, eighteen individual direct action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al., v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al, Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; US Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al, Case No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc. et al., v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03471; Holdings, LLC, v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc. et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-4616; The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for Central Grocers, Inc. et al v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05345; BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05877; United Supermarkets LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06693; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06316 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on September 17, 2018, following Defendants’ successful motion to transfer); Shamrock Foods Company and United Food Service, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-7284; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Quirch Foods, LLC, f/k/a Quirch Foods Co. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-08511; Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-00354), and Hooters of America, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00390 (N.D. Ill.) were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by individual direct purchaser entities, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. Substantial completion of document discovery for most Defendants, including PPC, occurred on July 18, 2018. The Court’s scheduling order currently requires completion of fact discovery on October 14, 2019; class certification briefing and expert reports proceeding from November 12, 2019 to July 14, 2020; and summary judgment to proceed 60 days after the Court rules on motions for class certification. The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will be consolidated. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC’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 PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC’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) PPC’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC’s industry was anticompetitive. On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision and for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion on April 25, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. As of January 18, 2019, plaintiff has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC 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 the 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 “Grower Litigation”). The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it considered and granted only motions from certain other defendants who were challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018. Rulings on the motion are pending. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (“Bankruptcy Court”) enjoined plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against the Company because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to the Company’s 2008-2009 bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against the Company based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On March 13, 2018, Pilgrim’s notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction. To date, plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction order or the confirmation order. On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action styled as DiSalvio v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30207, was brought against all of PPC’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 PPC 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 PPC’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. In January 2018, a stockholder derivative action entitled Raul v. Nogueira de Souza, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company, as nominal defendant, as well as the Company’s directors, its Chief Financial Officer, and majority stockholder, JBS S.A. 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 Wesley Mendonça Batista and Joesley Mendonça Batista, (ii) the individual defendants and JBS S.A. 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 (iii) issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation. On May 17, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings pending a final resolution of the Hogan class action litigation. The court-ordered deadline for the defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was originally set for July 30, 2018. This deadline was extended to August 31, 2018, at which time the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion on September 4, 2018. On January 25, 2018, a stockholder derivative action styled as Sciabacucchi v. JBS S.A., et al., was brought against all of PPC’s directors, JBS S.A., JBS USA Holding Lux S.à r.l. (“JBS Holding Lux”) and several members of the Batista family, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties arising out of the Company’s acquisition of Moy Park. On March 15, 2018, the members of the Batista family were dismissed from the action without prejudice by stipulation. On March 20, 2018, nominal defendant PPC filed its answer. On March 20, 2018, the remaining defendants, including PPC’s directors, JBS S.A., and JBS Holding Lux moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 19, 2018, director defendants Bell, Macaluso, and Cooper filed their opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On April 19, 2018, defendants JBS S.A., JBS Holding Lux, and director defendants Lovette, Nogueira de Souza, Tomazoni, Farahat, Molina, and de Vasconcellos, Jr. filed their opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On May 24, 2018, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis filed a derivative complaint, which was virtually identical to the Sciabacucchi complaint. On July 2, 2018, the Chancery granted a stipulation consolidating the cases and making the first complaint (Sciabacucchi) the operative complaint. On July 3, 2018, the plaintiffs dismissed the Special Committee defendants—Bell, Macaluso and Cooper. On July 9, 2018, the plaintiffs dismissed de Vasconcellos, Jr. and filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss by the entity and non-Special Committee defendants, who filed their reply on August 9, 2018. On November 15, 2018, the parties argued the dismissal of the remaining defendants (JBS S.A.; JBS Holding Lux; and director defendants Lovette, Nogueira de Souza, Tomazoni, Farahat, and Molina) before the Chancery. After arguments concluded, the Chancery asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the viability of an additional ground for dismissal. The parties filed their respective supplemental briefs on December 21, 2018. The Chancery has yet to issue it’s decision. 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 together with the companies controlled by J&F, the “J&F Group”), a company organized in Brazil and an indirect controlling stockholder of the Company, including a former senior executive and former board members of the Company, entered into plea bargain agreements (collectively, the “Plea Bargain Agreements”) with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal) (the “MPF”) in connection with certain misconduct by J&F and such individuals acting in their capacity as J&F executives. The details of such misconduct are set forth in separate annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements, and include admissions of payments to politicians and political parties in Brazil during a ten-year period in exchange for receiving, or attempting to receive, favorable treatment for certain J&F Group companies in Brazil. On June 5, 2017, J&F, for itself and as the controlling shareholder of the J&F Group companies, 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 10.3 billion Brazilian reais, adjusted for inflation, over a 25-year period. Various proceedings by Brazilian governmental authorities remain pending against J&F and certain of its officers to potentially invalidate the Plea Bargain Agreements and impose more severe penalties for additional alleged misconduct that were not disclosed in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements. J&F is conducting an internal investigation in accordance with the terms of the Leniency Agreement, and has engaged outside advisors to assist in conducting this investigation, which is ongoing, and with which we are fully cooperating. JBS S.A. and the Company have engaged outside U.S. legal counsel to: (i) conduct an independent investigation in connection with matters disclosed in the Leniency Agreement and the Plea Bargain Agreements; and (ii) communicate with relevant U.S. authorities, including the Department of Justice regarding the factual findings of that investigation. Additionally, JBS S.A. and the Company have taken, and are continuing to take, measures to enhance their compliance programs, including to prevent and detect bribery and corruption. We cannot predict when the J&F and JBS S.A. investigations will be completed or the results of such investigations, including whether any litigation will be brought against us or the outcome or impact of any resulting litigation. We will monitor the results of the investigations. Any proceedings that require us to make substantial payments, affect our reputation or otherwise interfere with our business operations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. Any further developments in these, or other, matters involving the controlling shareholders, directors, or officers of J&F, or other parties affiliated with us, could subject JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company) to potential fines or penalties, may materially adversely affect the public perception or reputation of JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company) and 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://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