XML 235 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 25, 2023
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. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the litigation matters or other actions nor when they will be resolved. The consequences of the pending litigation matters are inherently uncertain, and settlements, adverse actions, or adverse judgments in some or all of these matters, including investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) or the Attorneys General, may result in monetary damages, fines, penalties, or injunctive relief against the Company, which could be material and could adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. Any claims or litigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could damage the Company’s reputation and make it more difficult to compete effectively or to obtain adequate insurance in the future. In addition, the U.S. government’s recent focus on market dynamics in the meat processing industry could expose the Company to additional costs and risks. Tax Claims and Proceedings During 2014 and 2015, the Mexican Tax Administration Service (“SAT”) opened a review of Avícola Pilgrim’s Pride de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Avícola”) with regard to tax years 2009 and 2010. In both instances, the SAT claims 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 SAT, 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 appealed the opinion, and on January 31, 2023, the appeal as to tax year 2009 was dismissed by the Mexico Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Company paid $25.9 million for tax year 2009. The opinion for tax year 2010 is still under appeal. Avícola has recorded a tax reserve of $17.0 million in connection therewith. 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 filed a petition to nullify theses assessments, and on June 7, 2023, the tax court granted the petition. The Mexican Tax Authorities have appealed that decision. Amounts under appeal are approximately $287.5 million for each of the two tax assessments. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time. U.S. Litigation Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of federal class action lawsuits 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 and styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 (“Broiler Antitrust 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: the direct purchasers (“Broiler DPPs”), the commercial and institutional indirect purchasers (“Broiler CIIPPs”), and the end-user consumer indirect purchasers (“Broiler EUCPs”). Between December 8, 2017 and September 1, 2021, 82 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual direct purchaser entities (“Broiler DAPs”) naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints, though some added allegations of price fixing and bid rigging on certain sales. 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 on September 12, 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 June 30, 2023, the Illinois Court issued its summary judgment order that dismissed certain claims against PPC but denied dismissal as to the supply reduction claims from 2008-2012. PPC has entered into agreements to settle all claims made by the Broiler DPPs, Broiler CIIPPs, and Broiler EUCPs, for an aggregate total of $195.5 million, each of which has received final approval from the Illinois Court. PPC continues to defend itself against the Broiler DAPs as well as parties that have opted out of the class settlements (collectively, the “Broiler Opt Outs”). PPC will seek reasonable settlements where they are available. To date, PPC has recognized an expense of $527.4 million to cover settlements with various Broiler Opt Outs. For the six months ending June 25, 2023, $13.0 million has been recognized by PPC in Selling, general and administrative expense (“SG&A expense”) in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, a series of 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, styled as Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al., No.19-cv-02521. The plaintiffs are a putative class of poultry processing plant production and maintenance workers (“Poultry Workers Class”) and allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Poultry Workers Class in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 18, 2020, which the Maryland Court denied on March 10, 2021. On June 14, 2021, PPC entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the Poultry Workers Class for $29.0 million, though the agreement is still subject to final approval by the Maryland Court. On February 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which extended the relevant period, added defendants, and included additional workers in the class. PPC recognizes these settlement expenses within SG&A expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC and other chicken 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. The complaint was consolidated with several subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaints and styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which the Oklahoma Court denied as to PPC and certain other defendants. PPC, therefore, continues to litigate against the putative class plaintiffs. On October 20, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of certain PPC stockholders, 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 styled as Hogan v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-02611 (“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. On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Colorado Court granted on procedural grounds on April 19, 2021. 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. On July 13, 2023, the Tenth Circuit reversed the Colorado Court decision and remanded to consider the complaint on the merits. U.S. State Matters From February 21, 2017 through May 4, 2021, the Attorneys General for multiple U.S. states have issued civil investigative demands (“CIDs”). The CIDs request, 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 Attorneys General in these states in producing documents pursuant to the CIDs. On September 1, 2020, February 22, 2021, and October 28, 2021, the Attorneys General in New Mexico (State of New Mexico v. Koch Foods, et al., D-101-CV-2020-01891), Alaska (State of Alaska v. Agri Stats, Inc., et al., 3AN-21-04632), and Washington (State of Washington v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., 21-2-14174-5), respectively, filed complaints against PPC and others based on allegations similar to those asserted in the Broiler Antitrust Litigation. PPC has answered all of the complaints and each case is now in discovery. On March 9, 2023, PPC entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the States of Washington and Alaska for $11.2 million. The State of Washington claim was paid in the second quarter of 2023. U.S. Federal Matters On February 9, 2022, the Company lea rned 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 is cooperating with the DOJ in its investigations. The DOJ has informed the Company that it is likely to file a civil complaint pursuant to at least one of these investigations.

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