XML 37 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 25, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General 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 its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. 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 (1) any reserve or special deposit requirement against assets of, deposits with or credit extended by such lender related to the loan, (2) any tax, duty or other charge with respect to the loan (except standard income tax) or (3) 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 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. Tax Claims and Proceedings During 2014 and 2015 the Mexican Tax Authorities opened a review of Avícola Pilgrim’s Pride de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Avícola”) in regards to tax years 2009 and 2010, respectively. In both instances, the Mexican Tax Authorities claim that controlled company status did not exist for certain subsidiaries because Avícola did not own 50% of the shares in voting rights of Incubadora Hidalgo, S. de R.L de C.V. and Comercializadora de Carnes de México S. de R.L de C.V. (both in 2009) and Pilgrim’s Pride, S. de R.L. de C.V. (in 2010). As a result, according to the tax authorities, Avícola should have considered dividends paid out of these subsidiaries partially taxable since a portion of the dividend amount was not paid from the net tax profit account (CUFIN). Avícola is currently appealing the opinion. Amounts under appeal, calculated by PPC and its advisors, are $32.4 million and $19.8 million for tax years 2009 and 2010, respectively. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time. On May 12, 2022, the Mexican Tax Authorities issued tax assessments against Pilgrim’s Pride, S. de R.L. de C.V. and Provemex Holdings, LLC in connection with PPC’s acquisition of Tyson de México. Following the acquisition, PPC re-domiciled Provemex Holdings, LLC from the U.S. to Mexico. The tax authorities claim that Provemex Holdings, LLC was a Mexican entity at the time of the acquisition and, as a result, was obligated to pay taxes on the sale. The Mexican subsidiaries of PPC are currently appealing these assessments. Amounts under appeal are approximately $244.4 million for such tax assessments. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time. In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of 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 (“Illinois Court”) against PPC and other defendants by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws (the “Broilers Litigation”). 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 (the “DPPs”) and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 8, 2017 and September 1, 2021, 82 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual direct purchaser entities (“DAPs”) naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. Subsequent amendments to certain complaints added allegations of price fixing and bid rigging on certain sales. On February 8, 2022, the Illinois court issued a revised scheduling order for certain plaintiffs who limited their claims to reduction of output, which sets the first trial date in fall 2023. The schedule for the rest of the plaintiffs is still awaiting an order from the Illinois Court. On May 27, 2022, the Illinois Court certified each of the three classes. On January 11, 2021, PPC announced that it had entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the DPPs for $75.0 million within Selling, general and administrative expense in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the year ended December 27, 2020. The Illinois Court granted final approval of the settlement on June 29, 2021. On July 28, 2021, PPC and the putative End-User Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (“EUCPs”) reached an agreement to settle all claims for $75.5 million. The Illinois Court granted final approval of the settlement on December 20, 2021. On August 3, 2021, PPC and the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (“CIIPPs”) reached an agreement to settle all claims for $45.0 million. The Illinois Court granted final approval of the settlement on April 18, 2022. The settlements with the DPPs, EUCPs and CIIPPs do not cover the claims of the DAPs or other parties who have or will opt out of such settlements (collectively, the “Opt Outs”). PPC will therefore continue to litigate against such Opt Outs and will seek reasonable settlements where they are available. To date, PPC has recognized an expense of $508.6 million to cover settlements with various Opt Outs. PPC recognizes these expenses within Selling, general and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income. On February 21, 2017, the Attorney General of Florida (“Florida AG”), issued a civil investigative demand (“CID”) regarding the broiler chicken market. The CID requests, among other things, data and information related to the acquisition and processing of broiler chickens and the sale of chicken products. PPC is cooperating with the Florida AG in producing documents pursuant to the CID. On August 6, 2020, the Attorney General of Washington (“Washington AG”), issued a CID regarding similar broiler chicken matters that are the subject of the Florida CID. PPC cooperated with the Washington AG in producing documents pursuant to the CID. On October 28, 2021, the Washington AG filed a complaint in the King County Superior Court for the State of Washington. The complaint alleges the same claims as those made in the Broilers Litigation under Washington state law. PPC filed its answer to the complaint on January 21, 2022. On September 1, 2020, the Attorney General of New Mexico filed a complaint in the First Judicial District Court in the County of Santa Fe, New Mexico. The complaint alleges the same claims as those made in the Broilers Litigation under New Mexico state law. PPC answered the complaint on February 1, 2021. On February 22, 2021, the Attorney General of Alaska filed a complaint in Superior Court in the Third Judicial District in Anchorage, Alaska. The complaint alleges the same claims as those made in the Broilers Litigation under Alaska state law. PPC answered the complaint on June 14, 2021. On each of February 24, 2021 and May 4, 2021, the Attorney General of Louisiana (“Louisiana AG”) issued a CID regarding similar broiler chicken matters that are the subject of Florida CID. PPC is cooperating with the Louisiana AG in producing documents pursuant to the CID. Other Claims and Proceedings On October 20, 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 (“Colorado Court”) against PPC and its named executive officers (the “Hogan Litigation”). 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 (1) PPC colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the Broilers Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws and (3) PPC’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct. The complaint seeks compensatory damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 4, 2017, the Colorado 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, 2016. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 12, 2017, and on March 14, 2018, the Colorado 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 Colorado Court’s decision and for permission to file a second amended complaint. On November 19, 2018, the Colorado Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On June 8, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, based in part on the Indictment (defined below). On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Colorado Court granted the motion to dismiss on April 19, 2021 and issued judgment in favor of defendants. On May 17, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for amended judgment, which the Colorado Court denied on November 29, 2021. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal on December 28, 2021, and the appeal was opened in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is now fully briefed with oral argument to occur the week of January 17, 2023. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other producers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (the “Oklahoma Court”) 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 Antitrust 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 defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Oklahoma Court granted only certain other defendants’ motions challenging jurisdiction. On January 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court denied the motion to dismiss, and lifted the stay on discovery. On October 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) seeking consolidation of a series of copycat complaints filed in September and October 2020 in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Colorado, the District of Kansas, and the Northern District of California. On December 15, 2020, the JPML ordered the transfer of all cases to the Oklahoma Court for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. On November 8, 2021, the Oklahoma Court entered a revised case management order in the multi-district litigation setting a deadline of August 1, 2022 for the close of fact discovery. That order also set a deadline of March 17, 2023 for the filing of class certification motions, with deadlines of April 28, 2023 for opposition briefing and June 9, 2023 for reply briefing. Under the order, motions for summary judgment are to be filed on July 31, 2023, with oppositions and replies due September 22, 2023, and October 13, 2023, respectively. On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action, DiSalvio v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30207, was brought against all of PPC’s directors and its then-Chief Executive Officer, William Lovette, and then-Chief Financial Officer, Fabio Sandri, in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado (the “Weld County Court”). 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 Broilers Litigation, and issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan Litigation. On April 17, 2017, a related stockholder derivative action, Brima v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30308, was brought against all of PPC’s directors and Messrs. Lovette and Sandri in the Weld County Court. The Brima complaint contains largely the same allegations as the DiSalvio complaint. The DiSalvio and Brima litigations (collectively, “the Derivative Litigation”) were consolidated on May 4, 2017. On October 14, 2020, an amended shareholder derivative complaint was filed that added former PPC executives Jayson Penn, Roger Austin, and Jimmie Little as named defendants and alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (1) failing to prevent PPC from engaging in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the Broiler litigation, the Indictment (as defined below), and other related proceedings; and (2) failing to prevent the issuance of false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan Litigation and the UFCW Litigation (as defined below). The Derivative Litigation was stayed, pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan Litigation described above. Following the Colorado Court granting defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Hogan litigation, the stay was lifted. The parties then filed a joint motion to continue the stay pending the Colorado Court’s decision on the motion for amended judgment, which the Weld County Court granted on June 22, 2021. Upon the Colorado Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for amended judgment in the Hogan Litigation, the stay was again lifted. On February 4, 2022, the Weld County Court ordered another stay until the earlier of (1) resolution of the appeal in the Hogan Litigation or (2) an order ruling on the motion to dismiss in the UFCW Litigation. Given the ruling in the UFCW Litigation, the Derivative Litigation stay has been lifted and PPC filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and awaiting a decision from the Weld County Court. Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (“Maryland Court”) against PPC and a number of other chicken producers, as well as Webber, Meng, Sahl & Company and Agri Stats. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing plant production and maintenance workers (“Plant Workers”). They allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act and seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present. On November 12, 2019, the Maryland Court ordered the consolidation of the four cases for pretrial purposes. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 22, 2019. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 20, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint asserts largely similar allegations to the pleadings in the consolidated complaint, but it was extended to include more class members and turkey processors as well as chicken processors. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on March 2, 2020. The Maryland Court dismissed PPC and a number of other defendants on September 16, 2020 without prejudice. The plaintiffs subsequently filed amended complaints on November 2, 2020 re-naming PPC and the other dismissed defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 18, 2020, which the Maryland Court denied on March 10, 2021. On June 14, 2021, PPC entered into a binding Settlement Agreement to settle all claims with the putative class of Plant Workers for $29.0 million and paid this amount during the third quarter of 2021, though the agreement is still subject to final approval by the Maryland Court. On December 17, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint, which the Maryland Court granted on March 21, 2022. On July 6, 2020, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A (“UFCW”), acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC stock between February 9, 2017 and June 3, 2020, filed a class action complaint in the Colorado Court against PPC, and Messrs. Lovette, Penn, and Sandri (the “UFCW Litigation”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s public statements regarding its business and the drivers behind its financial results were false and misleading due to the defendants’ purported failure to disclose its participation in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the Broilers Litigation and the Indictment (defined below). On September 4, 2020, UFCW and the New Mexico State Investment Council (“NMSIC”) filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff under the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act, and on March 17, 2021, the court appointed NMSIC as lead plaintiff. On May 26, 2021, NMSIC filed an amended complaint, and PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 19, 2021, which is now fully briefed. On March 8, 2022, the Colorado Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to all claims. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the judgment on April 5, 2022, which the Colorado Court denied on October 21, 2022. PPC cannot predict the outcome of these pending litigations nor when they will be resolved. The consequences of the pending litigation matters are inherently uncertain, and adverse actions, judgments or settlements in some or all of these matters may result in materially adverse monetary damages, fines, penalties or injunctive relief against PPC. Any claims or litigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could damage PPC’s reputation and make it more difficult to compete effectively or to obtain adequate insurance in the future. DOJ Antitrust Matter On July 1, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) issued a subpoena to PPC in connection with its investigation arising from the Broilers Litigation. On July 29, 2021, PPC learned of an indictment by a Grand Jury in the Colorado Court against four former employees of PPC (the “July 29 Indictment”), which alleged, among other charges, that the defendants entered into and engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids and fixing prices and other price-related terms for broiler chicken products sold in the U.S., in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On July 12, 2022, PPC learned of a superseding indictment by a Grand Jury in the Colorado Court alleging that one of the former employees named in the July 29 Indictment engaged in witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding (together with the July 29 Indictment, the “Indictment”). On August 11, 2022, the Colorado Court granted an unopposed motion to dismiss two of the former PPC employees from the Indictment, and on October 17, 2022, the Colorado Court granted a separate motion to dismiss for the remaining two former PPC employees from the Indictment. On February 9, 2022, the Company learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into human resources antitrust matters, and on October 6, 2022 the Company learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into grower contracts and payment practices. The Company has begun, and will continue, to cooperate with the DOJ in its investigations. The U.S. government’s recent focus and attention on market dynamics in the meat processing industry could expose PPC to additional costs and risks.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 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 https://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 https://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