XML 37 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.1

Regulation And Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Regulation And Contingencies | REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES Like other participants in our industry, we are subject to various laws and regulations administered by federal, state and other government entities, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and corresponding state agencies, as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Commodity 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. As of March 30, 2025 and December 29, 2024, we had contingent liabilities totaling $141 million in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets related to litigation matters, including those described below. We did not record any significant charges for litigation matters in the three months ended March 30, 2025 and March 31, 2024, respectively. These matters will not affect our profits or losses in future periods unless our accruals prove to be insufficient or excessive. It is reasonably possible that a change in our estimates may occur in the near term and that our accruals could be insufficient. We are unable to estimate the amount of possible loss in excess of our accruals, which could be material. Additionally, legal expenses incurred in our and our subsidiaries’ defense of these claims and any payments made to plaintiffs through unfavorable verdicts or otherwise could negatively impact our cash flows and our liquidity position. Antitrust Price-Fixing Litigation The Company has been named as one of 16 defendants in a series of class actions filed in 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging antitrust violations in the pork industry. The class cases were filed by three different groups of plaintiffs. In all of these cases, the plaintiffs alleged that starting in 2009 and continuing through at least June of 2018, the defendant pork producers agreed to reduce the supply of hogs in the U.S. in order to raise the price of hogs and all pork products. The plaintiffs in all of these cases also challenged the defendant pork producers’ use of benchmarking reports from defendant Agri Stats, Inc., alleging that the reports allowed the pork producers to share proprietary information and monitor each producer’s compliance with the supposed agreement to reduce supply. Payments in the aggregate amount of $194 million were made by us to settle all class claims. In addition to the class actions, the Company has been named as a defendant in similar antitrust lawsuits and related claims brought by a number of individual parties who opted out of the classes. The plaintiffs in the non-class cases assert the same or similar antitrust claims as the plaintiffs in the class actions. The Company has entered into negotiations with many of these claimants and has settled certain of these cases. Currently, 22 of these cases are pending against the Company. The Attorneys General for the states of New Mexico and Alaska and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have filed similar complaints on behalf of their respective states, territories, agencies and citizens. The Company has settled all of these cases. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. Antitrust Wage-Fixing Litigation On November 11, 2022, Smithfield Foods, Inc. and our wholly owned subsidiary, Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp., were named as two of the numerous defendants in a purported class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging wage-fixing violations in the red meat industry. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, most of whom operate beef or pork processing plants, conspired to suppress wages paid to plant workers in the U.S. in violation of the antitrust laws. The plaintiffs sought damages on behalf of all employees of defendants and their subsidiaries from January 1, 2014, to the present. The plaintiffs also sought treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which were largely denied by the court on September 27, 2023. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint adding additional defendants, including our wholly owned subsidiary, Murphy-Brown of Missouri, LLC (which has been dismissed voluntarily), and expanding the class period back to 2000. Since the case was filed, several defendants have settled. On April 5, 2024, the remaining defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 26, 2025, the court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and held that certain of plaintiffs’ new allegations are barred by the statute of limitations, Defendants’ answers to the remaining claims are due on May 9, 2025. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Maxwell Foods Litigation On August 13, 2020, Maxwell Foods, LLC (“Maxwell”) filed a complaint against Smithfield Foods, Inc. in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division for Wayne County, North Carolina. The complaint alleged that Smithfield breached the Production Sales Agreement (“PSA”) between the parties (as well as the duty of good faith and fair dealing): (1) by failing to provide Maxwell with the same pricing as other major hog suppliers in violation of a purported “Most-Favored-Nation Provision” found in a December 6, 1994 letter to Maxwell, (2) by failing to comply with an implicit duty to negotiate the PSA to provide alternative pricing to Maxwell when the Iowa-Southern Minnesota market allegedly ceased to be viable; and (3) by failing to purchase Maxwell’s entire output of hogs since April 2020. Smithfield filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina. Smithfield also filed a motion to dismiss several of Maxwell’s claims. On February 22, 2021, the U.S. District Court granted Maxwell’s motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of Wayne County and left Smithfield’s partial motion to dismiss the complaint for consideration by the state court in Wayne County. On March 1, 2021, Maxwell filed an amended complaint, which added a claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”). Smithfield filed a notice of designation seeking assignment of the case to the North Carolina Business Court. Maxwell objected to such designation, and on April 13, 2021 the Business Court overruled Maxwell’s objection. The Business Court also dismissed two of Maxwell’s claims: the implied duty to negotiate claim and the UDTPA claim. Maxwell subsequently filed another amended complaint adding a fraudulent concealment claim and a new breach of contract claim, as well as a request for punitive damages. The court dismissed the fraudulent concealment claim and the request for punitive damages. The three remaining claims, all for breach of contract, are: (1) the claim under the “Most-Favored-Nation Provision,” (2) the claim that Smithfield failed to purchase Maxwell’s entire output of hogs since April 2020, and (3) the claim that from time to time, Smithfield would calculate Maxwell’s payment for a delivery of hogs using an average of the preceding week’s weight rather than the actual weights of the hogs being delivered. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and related motions to exclude expert testimony, which were fully briefed on November 17, 2023. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on December 30, 2024, the Business Court entered an order and opinion on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The Business Court held that: (1) Maxwell’s claim for breach of a “Most-Favored-Nation Provision” was dismissed except as it relates to pricing given to one particular supplier; (2) Smithfield is liable for breaching an output provision in the parties’ contract, with damages to be determined at trial; and (3) Maxwell’s claim that Smithfield breached the pricing term of the parties’ contract by using live-weight pricing shall proceed to trial based on the allegation that Smithfield did not pay the correct live- weight price for certain deliveries, but not based on the allegation that use of live-weight pricing itself breaches the contract. The Business Court has set a trial date of June 9, 2025. We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims.

X
- Definition Regulation and Contingencies Disclosure + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | smf_RegulationAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | smf_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration