XML 30 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Aug. 28, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES In fiscal 1991, we acquired Beatrice Company ("Beatrice"). As a result of the acquisition of Beatrice and the significant pre-acquisition contingencies of the Beatrice businesses and its former subsidiaries, our condensed consolidated post-acquisition financial statements reflect liabilities associated with the estimated resolution of these contingencies. These include various litigation and environmental proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to its acquisition by us. The litigation includes suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("ConAgra Grocery Products"), and the Company as alleged successors to W. P. Fuller Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by Beatrice until 1967. Although decisions favorable to us have been rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, we remain a defendant in active suits in Illinois and California. The Illinois suit seeks class-wide relief for reimbursement of costs associated with the testing of lead levels in blood. In California, a number of cities and counties joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of the alleged public nuisance. On September 23, 2013, a trial of the California case concluded in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, and on January 27, 2014, the court entered a judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants, which orders the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company believes ConAgra Grocery Products did not inherit any liabilities of W. P. Fuller Co. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in this case and has appealed the Judgment to The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District. The Company expects the appeal process will last several years. The absence of any linkage between ConAgra Grocery Products and W. P. Fuller Co. is a critical issue among others that the Company will continue to advance throughout the appeals process. It is not possible to estimate exposure in this case or the remaining case in Illinois (which is based on different legal theories). If ultimately necessary, the Company will look to its insurance policies for coverage; its carriers are on notice. However, the extent of insurance coverage is uncertain, and the Company cannot absolutely assure that the final resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's status as a potentially responsible party at 37 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent sites. These sites involve locations previously owned or operated by predecessors of Beatrice that used or produced petroleum, pesticides, fertilizers, dyes, inks, solvents, PCBs, acids, lead, sulfur, tannery wastes, and/or other contaminants. Beatrice has paid or is in the process of paying its liability share at 33 of these sites. Reserves for these matters have been established based on our best estimate of the undiscounted remediation liabilities, which estimates include evaluation of investigatory studies, extent of required clean-up, the known volumetric contribution of Beatrice and other potentially responsible parties, and its experience in remediating sites. The accrual for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $54.3 million as of August 28, 2016, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. We expect expenditures for Beatrice-related environmental matters to continue for up to 18 years. In certain limited situations, we will guarantee an obligation of an unconsolidated entity. At the time in which we initially provide such a guarantee, we assess the risk of financial exposure to us under these agreements. We consider the credit-worthiness of the guaranteed party, the value of any collateral pledged against the related obligation, and any other factors that may mitigate our risk. We actively monitor market and entity-specific conditions that may result in a change of our assessment of the risk of loss under these agreements. We are a party to various potato supply agreements. Under the terms of certain such potato supply agreements, we have guaranteed repayment of short-term bank loans of the potato suppliers, under certain conditions. At August 28, 2016, the amount of supplier loans we have effectively guaranteed was $67.9 million. We have not established a liability for these guarantees, as we have determined that the likelihood of our required performance under the guarantees is remote. Federal income tax credits were generated related to our sweet potato production facility in Delhi, Louisiana. Third parties invested in these income tax credits. We have guaranteed these third parties the face value of the income tax credits over their statutory lives, through fiscal 2017, in the event that the income tax credits are recaptured or reduced. The face value of the income tax credits was $26.7 million as of August 28, 2016. We believe the likelihood of recapture or reduction of the income tax credits is remote, and therefore we have not established a liability in connection with these guarantees. We are a party to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of our ongoing business operations. Among these, there are lawsuits, claims, and matters related to the February 2007 recall of our peanut butter products. Among the matters outstanding during fiscal 2015 related to the peanut butter recall was an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Georgia and the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice into the 2007 recall. Just prior to the end of fiscal 2015, we negotiated a resolution of this matter, which resulted in an executed plea agreement pursuant to which ConAgra Grocery Products will plead guilty to a single misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act. If the plea is accepted by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, the government’s investigation into the 2007 recall will conclude and ConAgra Grocery Products will make payments totaling $11.2 million to the federal government. Expenses related to this payment were accrued in previous periods. During fiscal 2013 and 2012, we recognized charges of $7.5 million and $17.5 million, respectively, in connection with this matter. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we reduced our accrual by $6.7 million. During the first quarter of fiscal 2015, we further reduced our accrual by $5.8 million and further reduced it by $1.2 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2015, based on ongoing discussions with the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice. The plea agreement is subject to Court approval, which will be sought along with the formal sentencing process in the coming months. In June 2009, an accidental explosion occurred at our manufacturing facility in Garner, North Carolina. This facility was the primary production facility for our Slim Jim® branded meat snacks. In June 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced its determination that the explosion was the result of an accidental natural gas release, and not a deliberate act. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, we settled our property and business interruption claims related to the Garner accident with our insurance providers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. ("Jacobs"), our engineer and project manager at the site, filed a declaratory judgment action against us seeking indemnity for personal injury claims brought against it as a result of the accident. In the first quarter of fiscal 2012, our motion for summary judgment was granted and the suit was dismissed without prejudice on the basis that the suit was filed prematurely. In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, Jacobs refiled its action for indemnity. On March 25, 2016, a Douglas County jury in Nebraska rendered a verdict in favor of Jacobs and against us in the amount of $108.9 million plus post-judgment interest. Notice of Appeal was filed in September 2016. Although our insurance carriers have provided customary notices of reservation of their rights under the policies of insurance, we expect any ultimate exposure in this case to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible. We hold a fifty percent ownership interest in Lamb Weston/Meijer, V.O.F. (“Lamb Weston Meijer”), a Netherlands joint venture, headquartered in the Netherlands, that manufactures and sells frozen potato products principally in Europe. We and our partner are jointly and severally liable for all legal liabilities of Lamb Weston Meijer. As of August 28, 2016 and May 29, 2016, the total liabilities of Lamb Weston Meijer were $198.6 million and $203.7 million, respectively. Lamb Weston Meijer is well capitalized, with partners’ equity of $285.9 million and $284.5 million as of August 28, 2016 and May 29, 2016, respectively. We have not established a liability on our balance sheets for the obligations of Lamb Weston Meijer, as we have determined the likelihood of any required payment by us to settle such liabilities of Lamb Weston Meijer is remote. We lease certain office buildings from entities that we have determined to be variable interest entities. The lease agreements contain put options exercisable now and remain exercisable until generally 30 days after the end of the respective lease agreements, that allow the lessors to require us to purchase the buildings at the greater of original construction cost, or fair market value, without a lease in place. We have financial exposure with respect to these entities in the event we are required to purchase the leased buildings for a price in excess of the then current fair value under the applicable lease purchase options. We are amortizing the difference between the estimated put price and the estimated fair value (without a lease agreement in place) of each respective property over the remaining respective lease term within selling, general, and administrative expenses. As of August 28, 2016, the estimated amount by which the put prices exceeded the fair values of the related properties was $58.5 million, of which we have accrued $11.1 million. As these buildings are worth considerably more when under lease agreements than when vacant, we may be able to mitigate some, or all, of the related financial exposure created by the put options by maintaining active lease agreements and/or by subleasing the buildings to credit worthy tenants. We do not expect to ultimately incur material financial losses as a result of the potential exercise of the lease put options by the lessors. After taking into account liabilities recognized for all of the foregoing matters, management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. It is reasonably possible that a change in one of the estimates of the foregoing matters may occur in the future and, as noted, while unlikely, the lead paint matter could result in a material final judgment. Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.

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/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration