XML 59 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Legal Proceedings | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2015
Legal Proceedings [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure Text Block | 1 3. Legal Proceedings and Other Contingencies In the ordinary course of its business, the Company is made a party to certain legal proceedings seeking monetary damages, including proceedings involving product liability claims, workers’ compensation along with other employee claims, tort and other general liability claims, for which it carries insurance, as well as patent infringement and related litigation. The Company is in a highly regulated industry and is also periodically involved in government actions for regulatory violations and other matters surrounding the manufacturing of its products, including, but not limited to, environmental, employee, and product safety issues. While it is not feasible to predict or determine the ultimate outcome of t hese matters, the Company does not believe that an adverse decision in any of these legal proceedings would have a material adverse impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In June 2010, the Company received a Notice of Viol ation of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65, from the Environmental Law Foundation ("ELF"). This notice was made to the California Attorney General and various other government officials, and to 49 companies including Seneca Foods Corporation whom ELF alleges manufactured, distributed or sold packaged peaches, pears, fruit cocktail and fruit juice that contain lead without providing a clear and reasonable warning to consumers. Under Calif ornia law, proper notice must be made to the State and involved firms at least 60 days before any suit under Proposition 65 may be filed by private litigants like ELF. That 60-day period has expired and to date neither the California Attorney General nor any appropriate district attorney or city attorney has initiated an action against the Company. However, private litigant ELF filed an action against the Company and 27 other named companies on September 28, 2011, in Superior Court of Alameda County, Cali fornia, alleging violations of Proposition 65 and seeking various measures of relief, including injunctive and declaratory relief and civil penalties. The Company, along with the other named companies, vigorously defended the claim. A responsive answer w as filed, the discovery process was completed and a trial on liability was held beginning in April of 2013 in accordance with court schedules. The trial was completed on May 16, 2013 and, on July 15, 2013 the judge issued a tentative and proposed statemen t of decision agreeing with the Company, and the other defendants, that the “safe harbor” defense had been met under the regulations relating to Proposition 65 and the Company will not be required to place a Proposition 65 warning label on the products at issue in the case. The trial decision was finalized and the decision was appealed by ELF with a filing dated October 3, 2013. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One unanimously rejected the appeal by ELF in a decision date d March 17, 2015. ELF has filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. A decision by the California Supreme Court to grant or deny the petition has not yet been made, as it is still early in the process. The Company is unable to determi ne the scope or the likelihood of success of the petition for review. The Company, along with other defendants are planning on vigorously defending ELF’s petition for review, and any review if the petition is granted. With the successful defense of the ca se, the remedies portion of the case was not litigated. So far, our portion of legal fees in defense of this action have been sizable, as would be expected with litigation resulting in trial, and the appeal, but have not had a material adverse impact on t he Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Additionally, in the ordinary course of its business, the Company is made party to certain legal proceedings seeking monetary damages, including proceedings invoking product liability c laims, either directly or through indemnification obligations, and we are not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to any such matter

X
- Details
Name: | senea_LegalProceedingsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | senea_
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 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 2: 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 3: 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=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: 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 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=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration