XML 37 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 29, 2024
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. Except as noted below, we have recorded no provision and are unable to reasonably estimate the amount of loss or amount of any range of loss with respect to these proceedings due to the nature and status of these matters. 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). Avícola appealed the opinion, and on January 31, 2023, the appeal as to tax year 2009 was dismissed by the Mexico Supreme Court. Accordingly, during 2023 PPC paid $25.9 million for tax year 2009. The opinion for tax year 2010 is still under appeal. Accordingly, the Company has an accrual of $14.8 million as of September 29, 2024 with regard to the tax year 2010. On May 12, 2022, the SAT 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 these assessments, which is still pending. Amounts under appeal are approximately $250.8 million for each of the two tax assessments. No provision has been recorded for these amounts at this time. In 2019 and 2020, the UK Revenue & Customs Authority (HMRC) opened reviews of the 2017 and 2018 tax returns of Onix Investments UK Ltd in which HMRC evaluated the deductibility of certain interest related expenses incurred by Onix Investments UK Ltd (the “Deductions”). The Deductions total $7.9 million for tax year 2017 and $32.1 million for tax year 2018. On April 12, 2024, HMRC concluded that the Deductions should be disallowed and Onix Investments UK Ltd appealed. On October 8, 2024, HMRC issued a Review Conclusion Letter affirming the prior decision to disallow the Deductions. Onix Investments UK Ltd intends to timely file a Grounds of Appeal and will continue to defend this matter. 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 (the “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. PPC has entered into agreements to settle all claims made by the three certified classes 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 direct-action plaintiffs as well as parties that have opted out of the class settlements (collectively, the “Broiler Opt Outs”). PPC will seek reasonable settlements with the Broiler Opt Outs where they are available. To date, we have recognized an expense of $537.4 million to cover settlements with various Broiler Opt Outs. We have recognized these settlement expenses within Selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expense in our Condensed 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. PPC entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the Poultry Workers Class for $29.0 million and paid the plaintiffs this amount during 2021, though the agreement is still subject to final approval by the Maryland Court. We have recognized these settlement expenses within SG&A expense in our Condensed 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 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. On June 24, 2024, a settlement was reached in the amount of $100.0 million. This settlement was paid on October 28, 2024. We have recognized these settlement expenses within SG&A expense in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. The incremental increase in settlement amount was recognized in the three months ended June 30, 2024. 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 against PPC and its named executive officers styled as Hogan v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-02611. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading. PPC continues to litigate against the putative class plaintiffs. No loss related to this matter can be reasonably estimated or determined probable at this time, therefore no accrual has been recorded to date on this matter. 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. The State of Washington settlement was paid in the second quarter of 2023 for $11.0 million. On June 24, 2024, PPC entered into a settlement with the Attorney General in New Mexico for $5.2 million. The State of New Mexico settlement was paid in the third quarter of 2024. On July 3, 2024, PPC entered into a settlement with Attorney General in Alaska for $1.25 million, and this amount was paid on July 10, 2024. These settlements were recognized in SG&A expense in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income in their respective periods. U.S. Federal Matters On February 9, 2022, PPC lea rned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into human resources antitrust matters, and on October 6, 2022, PPC learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into grower contracts and payment practices and on October 2, 2023, received a CID requesting information from PPC. PPC is cooperating with the DOJ in its investigations and CID. 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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: 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 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: 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/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: 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 6: 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