XML 28 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.4

Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
	Oct. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies ​ Commitments and guarantees ​ We lease facilities and certain equipment under non-cancelable leases expiring at various dates through 2031. We are committed to make minimum cash payments under these agreements as of October 31, 2020. See Note 17 for the adoption of the new lease accounting standard. ​ In April 2019, we sold our Temecula, California packinghouse for $7.1 million in cash and, concurrently, leased back a portion of the facility representing approximately one-third of the total square footage.  In connection with the capital lease we capitalized $3.2 million as a capital lease in property, plant and equipment and recorded a lease liability of $3.2 million ($0.1 million in current portion and $3.1 million in long term debt). ​ During our third quarter of fiscal year 2019, we entered into a 10-year building and equipment lease for fresh food facility in Conley, GA.  This facility is primarily intended to process fresh-cut fruit & vegetables and prepared foods products for our RFG business segment.  Annual rent for the building and equipment approximates $0.9 million and $0.6 million, respectively, over the life of the lease. The lease for the equipment is considered to be a capital lease, therefore, we calculated the present value of the minimum lease payments related to the equipment and capitalized $2.8 million as a capital lease in property, plant and equipment and recorded $2.8 million as a lease obligation. ​ We indemnify our directors and have the power to indemnify each of our officers, employees and other agents, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. No amounts have been accrued in the accompanying financial statements related to these indemnifications. ​ Litigation ​ From time to time, we are also involved in litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business that we do not believe will have a material adverse impact on our financial statements. ​ Mexico tax audits ​ We conduct business both domestically and internationally and, as a result, one or more of our subsidiaries files income tax returns in U.S. federal, U.S. state and certain foreign jurisdictions.  Accordingly, in the normal course of business, we are subject to examination by taxing authorities, primarily in Mexico and the United States.  During our third quarter of fiscal 2016, our wholly owned subsidiary, Calavo de Mexico (CDM), received a written communication from the Ministry of Finance and Administration of the government of the State of Michoacan, Mexico (MFM) containing preliminary observations related to a fiscal 2011 tax audit of such subsidiary. MFM’s preliminary observations outline certain proposed adjustments primarily related to intercompany funding, deductions for services from certain vendors/suppliers and Value Added Tax (IVA).  During the period from our fourth fiscal quarter of 2016 through our first fiscal quarter of 2019, we attempted to resolve our case with the MFM through working meetings attended by representatives of the MFM, CDM and PRODECON (Local Tax Ombudsman). However, we were unable to materially resolve our case with the MFM through the PRODECON process. ​ As a result, in April 2019, the MFM issued a final tax assessment to CDM (the “2011 Assessment”) totaling approximately $2.2 billion Mexican pesos (approx. $103.5 million USD at October 31, 2020) related to Income Tax, Flat Rate Business Tax and Value Added Tax, corresponding to the fiscal 2011 tax audit. We have consulted with an internationally recognized tax advisor and continue to believe this tax assessment is without merit. Therefore, we filed an administrative appeal challenging the MFM’s year 2011 assessment on June 12, 2019. The filing of an administrative appeal in Mexico is a process in which the taxpayer appeals to a different office within the Mexican tax authorities, forcing the legal office within the MFM to rule on the matter. This process preserves the taxpayer’s right to litigate in tax court if the administrative appeal process ends without a favorable or just resolution. Furthermore, in August 2018, we received a favorable ruling from Mexico's Federal Tax Administration Service, Servicio de Administracion Tributaria’s (the “SAT”) central legal department in Mexico City on another tax matter (see Note 15 regarding IVA refunds) indicating that they believe that our legal interpretation is accurate on a matter that is also central to the 2011 Assessment. We believe this recent ruling undermines the Assessment we received in April 2019. ​ During November 2020, we were in contact with the MFM and presented our arguments that we believe undermine the legality of the 2011 Assessment, asserting among others, the determination by the SAT’s central legal department described below, which recognizes the legal validity of our operation as a maquiladora. Based on the foregoing, the MFM has offered to take into account such argument in its resolution of the pending administrative appeal. ​ We believe we have the legal arguments and documentation to sustain the positions challenged by the MFM. ​ Additionally, we also received notice from the SAT, that CDM is currently under examination related to fiscal year 2013. In January 2017, we received preliminary observations from SAT outlining certain proposed adjustments primarily related to intercompany funding, deductions for services from certain vendors/suppliers, and VAT. We provided a written rebuttal to these preliminary observations during our second fiscal quarter of 2017. During the period from our third fiscal quarter of 2017 through our third fiscal quarter of 2018, we attempted to resolve our case with the SAT through working meetings attended by representatives of the SAT, CDM and the PRODECON. However, we were unable to materially resolve our case with the SAT through the PRODECON process. ​ As a result, in July 2018, the SAT’s local office in Uruapan issued to CDM a final tax assessment (the “2013 Assessment”) totaling approximately $2.6 billion Mexican pesos (approx. $122.4 million USD at October 31, 2020) related to Income Tax, Flat Rate Business Tax, and Value Added Tax, related to this fiscal 2013 tax audit.  Additionally, the tax authorities have determined that we owe an employee’s profit-sharing liability, totaling approximately $118 million Mexican pesos (approx. $5.6 million USD at October 31, 2020). ​ We have consulted with both an internationally recognized tax advisor, as well as a global law firm with offices throughout Mexico, and we continue to believe that this tax assessment is without merit. In August 2018, we filed an administrative appeal on the 2013 Assessment. CDM has appealed our case to the SAT’s central legal department in Mexico City.  Furthermore, and as noted in the preceding paragraphs, in August 2018, we received a favorable ruling from the SAT’s central legal department in Mexico City on another tax matter (see Note 15 regarding IVA refunds) indicating that they believe that our legal interpretation is accurate on a matter that is central to the 2013 Assessment. We believe this recent ruling significantly undermines the 2013 Assessment we received in July 2018. ​ In light of the foregoing, the Company is currently considering its options for resolution of the two tax assessments: ​ - In the unlikely event of an unfavorable resolution of the administrative appeal, we could file a nullification suit with the Mexican Tax Court. In order to file such suit, we would be required to post collateral or a bond for the total amount of the tax assessment (including inflation adjustments, penalties and surcharges) while the suit is in process, which could last from two to three years. If the suit results in an unfavorable ruling, there is an option to appeal to the Collegiate Circuit Court while maintaining the collateral or bond in place. ​ - In the event of filing a nullification suit, the collateral or bonding requirement may be avoided by filing a nullification suit on substantive matters (“Juicio de Fondo”). This type of suit permits only arguments on the legal merits of the taxpayer’s case, and limits arguments on procedural matters. ​ The estimated time for resolution of this matter could be affected by the situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We continue to believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters is unlikely to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 450
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136

Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 440
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 440
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 4
-Subparagraph (c)
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Accounting Standards Codification
-Topic 440
-SubTopic 10
-Section 50
-Paragraph 4
-Subparagraph (a)
-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308

+ Details

Name:	us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix:	us-gaap_
Data Type:	nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type:	na
Period Type:	duration