REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES	8 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2013
REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES	REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES Like other participants in the industry, we are subject to various laws and regulations administered by federal, state and other government entities, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and corresponding state agencies, as well as the United States Department of Agriculture, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission and similar agencies in foreign countries. We from time to time receive notices and inquiries from regulatory authorities and others asserting that we are not in compliance with such laws and regulations. In some instances, litigation ensues. In addition, individuals may initiate litigation against us. North Carolina Nuisance Litigation In July, August and September 2013, 25 complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina by 479 individual plaintiffs against Smithfield and our wholly owned subsidiary, Murphy-Brown. The complaints relate to operations on approximately 11 company-owned and 79 contract farms. All 25 complaints include causes of action for temporary nuisance, negligence, and negligent entrustment and seek recovery of an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. Smithfield and Murphy-Brown have filed Motions for Change of Venue, to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Negligent Entrustment Claim and for a More Definite Statement in all 25 cases. All 25 complaints stem from requests for pre-litigation mediation of farm nuisance disputes filed in early July 2013 in Wake County, North Carolina. Plaintiffs’ counsel have filed pre-litigation mediation notices on behalf of approximately 334 additional claimants who have not filed complaints. Approximately 224 additional potential claimants have threatened to bring claims but not initiated any formal legal process. The Company believes that the claims are unfounded and intends to defend the suits vigorously. Our policy for establishing accruals and disclosures for contingent liabilities is contained in Note 1-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. We established a reserve estimating our expenses to defend against these and similar potential claims on the Successor's opening balance sheet. Consequently, expenses and other liabilities associated with these claims for subsequent periods will not affect our profits or losses unless our reserve proves to be insufficient or excessive. However, legal expenses incurred in our and our subsidiaries’ defense of these claims and any payments made to plaintiffs through unfavorable verdicts or otherwise will negatively impact our cash flows and our liquidity position. Given that this matter is in its very preliminary stages and given the inherent uncertainty of the outcome for these and similar potential claims, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these loss contingencies outside the expenses we will incur to defend against these claims. We will continue to review whether an additional accrual is necessary and whether we have the ability to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters. Fire Insurance Settlement In July 2009 (fiscal 2010), a fire occurred at the primary manufacturing facility of our subsidiary, Patrick Cudahy, Inc. (Patrick Cudahy), in Cudahy, Wisconsin. The fire damaged a portion of the facility’s production space and required the temporary cessation of operations, but did not consume the entire facility. Shortly after the fire, we resumed production activities in undamaged portions of the plant, including the distribution center, and took steps to address the supply needs for Patrick Cudahy products by shifting production to other Company and third-party facilities. We maintain comprehensive general liability and property insurance, including business interruption insurance. In December 2010 (fiscal 2011), we reached an agreement with our insurance carriers to settle the claim for a total of $208.0 million, of which $70.0 million had been advanced to us in fiscal 2010. We allocated these proceeds to first recover the book value of the property lost, out-of-pocket expenses incurred and business interruption losses that resulted from the fire. The remaining proceeds were recognized as an involuntary conversion gain of $120.6 million in the Corporate segment in the third quarter of fiscal 2011. The involuntary conversion gain was classified in a separate line item on the consolidated statement of income. We also recognized $15.8 million of the insurance proceeds in fiscal 2011 in cost of sales in our Pork segment to offset business interruption losses incurred. Of the $138.0 million in insurance proceeds received in fiscal 2011 to settle the claim, $120.6 million was classified in net cash flows from investing activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows, which represents the portion of proceeds related to destruction of the facility. The remainder of the proceeds was recorded in net cash flows from operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows and was attributed to business interruption recoveries and reimbursable costs covered under our insurance policy.

REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES

Like other participants in the industry, we are subject to various laws and regulations administered by federal, state and other government entities, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and corresponding state agencies, as well as the United States Department of Agriculture, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission and similar agencies in foreign countries.

We from time to time receive notices and inquiries from regulatory authorities and others asserting that we are not in compliance with such laws and regulations. In some instances, litigation ensues. In addition, individuals may initiate litigation against us.

North Carolina Nuisance Litigation

In July, August and September 2013, 25 complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina by 479 individual plaintiffs against Smithfield and our wholly owned subsidiary, Murphy-Brown. The complaints relate to operations on approximately 11 company-owned and 79 contract farms. All 25 complaints include causes of action for temporary nuisance, negligence, and negligent entrustment and seek recovery of an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. Smithfield and Murphy-Brown have filed Motions for Change of Venue, to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Negligent Entrustment Claim and for a More Definite Statement in all 25 cases.

All 25 complaints stem from requests for pre-litigation mediation of farm nuisance disputes filed in early July 2013 in Wake County, North Carolina. Plaintiffs’ counsel have filed pre-litigation mediation notices on behalf of approximately 334 additional claimants who have not filed complaints. Approximately 224 additional potential claimants have threatened to bring claims but not initiated any formal legal process. The Company believes that the claims are unfounded and intends to defend the suits vigorously.

Our policy for establishing accruals and disclosures for contingent liabilities is contained in Note 1-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. We established a reserve estimating our expenses to defend against these and similar potential claims on the Successor's opening balance sheet. Consequently, expenses and other liabilities associated with these claims for subsequent periods will not affect our profits or losses unless our reserve proves to be insufficient or excessive. However, legal expenses incurred in our and our subsidiaries’ defense of these claims and any payments made to plaintiffs through unfavorable verdicts or otherwise will negatively impact our cash flows and our liquidity position. Given that this matter is in its very preliminary stages and given the inherent uncertainty of the outcome for these and similar potential claims, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these loss contingencies outside the expenses we will incur to defend against these claims. We will continue to review whether an additional accrual is necessary and whether we have the ability to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters.

Fire Insurance Settlement

In July 2009 (fiscal 2010), a fire occurred at the primary manufacturing facility of our subsidiary, Patrick Cudahy, Inc. (Patrick Cudahy), in Cudahy, Wisconsin. The fire damaged a portion of the facility’s production space and required the temporary cessation of operations, but did not consume the entire facility. Shortly after the fire, we resumed production activities in undamaged portions of the plant, including the distribution center, and took steps to address the supply needs for Patrick Cudahy products by shifting production to other Company and third-party facilities.

We maintain comprehensive general liability and property insurance, including business interruption insurance. In December 2010 (fiscal 2011), we reached an agreement with our insurance carriers to settle the claim for a total of $208.0 million, of which $70.0 million had been advanced to us in fiscal 2010. We allocated these proceeds to first recover the book value of the property lost, out-of-pocket expenses incurred and business interruption losses that resulted from the fire. The remaining proceeds were recognized as an involuntary conversion gain of $120.6 million in the Corporate segment in the third quarter of fiscal 2011. The involuntary conversion gain was classified in a separate line item on the consolidated statement of income. We also recognized $15.8 million of the insurance proceeds in fiscal 2011 in cost of sales in our Pork segment to offset business interruption losses incurred.

Of the $138.0 million in insurance proceeds received in fiscal 2011 to settle the claim, $120.6 million was classified in net cash flows from investing activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows, which represents the portion of proceeds related to destruction of the facility. The remainder of the proceeds was recorded in net cash flows from operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows and was attributed to business interruption recoveries and reimbursable costs covered under our insurance policy.