XML 22 R8.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Accounting Policies [Abstract] |
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | Summary of Significant Accounting Policies For a detailed discussion about the Company’s significant accounting policies, see Note 2, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” to the consolidated financial statements in the 2017 Form 10-K. During the three and six months ended December 31, 2017, other than as set forth below and the adoption of Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities” (“ASU 2017-12”), ASU No. 2016-09, “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting” (“ASU 2016-09”), and ASU No. 2015-11, “Inventory (Topic 330): Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory” (“ASU 2015-11”), there were no significant updates made to the Company’s significant accounting policies. Coffee Brewing Equipment and Service The Company classifies certain expenses related to coffee brewing equipment provided to customers as cost of goods sold. These costs include the cost of the equipment as well as the cost of servicing that equipment (including service employees’ salaries, cost of transportation and the cost of supplies and parts) and are considered directly attributable to the generation of revenues from its customers. Accordingly, such costs included in cost of goods sold in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements in the three months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were $7.1 million and $5.8 million, respectively. Coffee brewing equipment costs included in cost of goods sold in the six months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were $13.5 million and $12.3 million, respectively. The Company capitalizes coffee brewing equipment and depreciates it over five years and reports the depreciation expense in cost of goods sold. Such depreciation expense related to capitalized coffee brewing equipment reported in cost of goods sold in the three months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 was $2.3 million and $2.1 million, respectively, and $4.4 million and $4.5 million, respectively, in the six months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. The Company capitalized coffee brewing equipment (included in machinery and equipment) in the amounts of $4.8 million and $5.9 million in the six months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Net (Loss) Income Per Common Share Net (loss) income per share (“EPS”) represents net (loss) income available to common stockholders divided by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period, excluding unallocated shares held by the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”). Dividends on the Company’s outstanding Series A Convertible Participating Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, par value $1.00 per share (“Series A Preferred Stock”), that the Company has paid or intends to pay are deducted from net (loss) income in computing net (loss) income available to common stockholders. Under the two-class method, net (loss) income available to nonvested restricted stockholders and holders of Series A Preferred Stock is excluded from net (loss) income available to common stockholders for purposes of calculating basic and diluted EPS. Diluted EPS represents net income available to holders of common stock divided by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding, inclusive of the dilutive impact of common equivalent shares outstanding during the period. Common equivalent shares include potentially dilutive shares from share-based compensation including stock options, unvested restricted stock, performance-based restricted stock units, and shares of Series A Preferred Stock, as converted, because they are deemed participating securities. In the absence of contrary information, the Company assumes 100% of the target shares are issuable under performance-based restricted stock units. The dilutive effect of Series A Preferred Stock is reflected in diluted EPS by application of the if-converted method. In applying the if-converted method, conversion will not be assumed for purposes of computing diluted EPS if the effect would be anti-dilutive. The Series A Preferred Stock is anti-dilutive whenever the amount of the dividend declared or accumulated in the current period per common share obtainable upon conversion exceeds basic EPS. See Note 19. Impairment of Goodwill and Indefinite-lived Intangible Assets Historically, the Company performed its annual assessment of impairment of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets as of June 30. During the three months ended December 31, 2017, the Company voluntarily changed its annual impairment assessment date from June 30 to January 31. The Company believes this change in assessment date, which represents a change in the method of applying an accounting principle, is preferred under the circumstances. Due to recent acquisitions, the Company’s goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible asset balances have increased. The Company believes the change in measurement date will provide additional time to complete the annual assessment of impairment of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets in advance of year-end reporting. Shipping and Handling Costs Shipping and handling costs incurred through outside carriers are recorded as a component of the Company’s selling expenses and were $6.9 million and $6.4 million, respectively, in the three months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, and $12.1 million and $11.2 million, respectively, in the six months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. Share-based Compensation The Company measures all share-based compensation cost at the grant date, based on the fair values of the awards that are ultimately expected to vest, and recognizes that cost as an expense on a straight line-basis in its consolidated statements of operations over the requisite service period. Fair value of restricted stock and performance-based restricted stock units is the closing price of the Company's common stock on the date of grant. The Company estimates the fair value of option awards using the Black-Scholes option valuation model, which requires management to make certain assumptions for estimating the fair value of stock options at the date of grant. The Black-Scholes option valuation model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options that have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. Because the Company’s stock options have characteristics significantly different from those of traded options, and because changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimates, in management’s opinion, the existing models may not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of the Company’s stock options. Although the fair value of stock options is determined using an option valuation model, that value may not be indicative of the fair value observed in a willing buyer/willing seller market transaction. In addition, the Company estimates the expected impact of forfeited awards and recognizes share-based compensation cost only for those awards ultimately expected to vest. If actual forfeiture rates differ materially from the Company’s estimates, share-based compensation expense could differ significantly from the amounts the Company has recorded in the current period. The Company periodically reviews actual forfeiture experience and will revise its estimates, as necessary. The Company will recognize as compensation cost the cumulative effect of the change in estimated forfeiture rates on current and prior periods in earnings of the period of revision. As a result, if the Company revises its assumptions and estimates, the Company’s share-based compensation expense could change materially in the future. The Company’s outstanding share-based awards include performance-based non-qualified stock options (“PNQs”) and performance-based restricted stock units (“PBRSUs”) that have performance-based vesting conditions in addition to time-based vesting. Awards with performance-based vesting conditions require the achievement of certain financial and other performance criteria as a condition to the vesting. The Company recognizes the estimated fair value of performance-based awards, net of estimated forfeitures, as share-based compensation expense over the service period based upon the Company’s determination of whether it is probable that the performance targets will be achieved. At each reporting period, the Company reassesses the probability of achieving the performance criteria and the performance period required to meet those targets. Determining whether the performance criteria will be achieved involves judgment, and the estimate of share-based compensation expense may be revised periodically based on changes in the probability of achieving the performance criteria. Revisions are reflected in the period in which the estimate is changed. If performance goals are not met, no share-based compensation expense is recognized for the cancelled PNQs or PBRSUs, and, to the extent share-based compensation expense was previously recognized for those cancelled PNQs or PBRSUs, such share-based compensation expense is reversed. If performance goals are exceeded and the payout is more than 100% of the target shares, additional compensation expense is recorded in the period when that determination is certified by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. See Note 16. Recently Adopted Accounting Standards In August 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued ASU 2017-12. ASU 2017-12 amends the hedge accounting model in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 815 to enable entities to better portray the economics of their risk management activities in the financial statements and enhance the transparency and understandability of hedge results. ASU 2017-12 expands an entity’s ability to hedge non-financial and financial risk components and reduce complexity in fair value hedges of interest rate risk. The guidance eliminates the requirement to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness and generally requires the entire change in the fair value of a hedging instrument to be presented in the same income statement line as the hedged item. The guidance also eases certain documentation and assessment requirements and modifies the accounting for components excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness. The guidance in ASU 2017-12 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years, and is effective for the Company beginning July 1, 2019. Early adoption is permitted in any interim period or fiscal year before the effective date. For cash flow and net investment hedges existing at the date of adoption, entities will apply the new guidance using a modified retrospective approach (i.e., with a cumulative effect adjustment recorded to the opening balance of retained earnings as of the initial application date). The guidance provides transition relief to make it easier for entities to apply certain amendments to existing hedges (including fair value hedges) where the hedge documentation needs to be modified. The Company early adopted ASU 2017-12 as of September 30, 2017 for its cash flow hedges related to coffee commodity purchases. Adoption of ASU 2017-12 resulted in a cumulative adjustment of $0.3 million to the opening balance of retained earnings. Adoption of ASU 2017-12 did not have any other material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09. ASU 2016-09 was issued as part of the FASB’s Simplification Initiative. The areas for simplification in ASU 2016-09 involve several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-09 requires that the tax impact related to the difference between share-based compensation for book and tax purposes be recognized as income tax benefit or expense in the reporting period in which such awards vest. ASU 2016-09 also required a modified retrospective adoption for previously unrecognized excess tax benefits. The guidance in ASU 2016-09 is effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those annual reporting periods. The Company adopted ASU 2016-09 beginning July 1, 2017 on a modified retrospective basis, recognizing all excess tax benefits previously unrecognized, as a cumulative-effect adjustment increasing deferred tax assets by $1.6 million and increasing retained earnings by the same amount as of July 1, 2017. Adoption of ASU 2016-09 did not have any other material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11. ASU 2015-11 simplifies the subsequent measurement of inventory by requiring inventory to be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Entities will continue to apply their existing impairment models to inventories that are accounted for using last-in first-out or LIFO and the retail inventory method or RIM. Under current guidance, net realizable value is one of several calculations an entity needs to make to measure inventory at the lower of cost or market. ASU 2015-11 is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, and the guidance must be applied prospectively after the date of adoption. The Company adopted ASU 2015-11 beginning July 1, 2017. Adoption of ASU 2015-11 did not have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. New Accounting Pronouncements In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-07, “Compensation—Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost” (“ASU 2017-07”). ASU 2017-07 amends the requirements in GAAP related to the income statement presentation of the components of net periodic benefit cost for an entity’s sponsored defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans. ASU 2017-07 changes the income statement presentation of defined benefit plan expense by requiring separation between operating expense (service cost component) and non-operating expense (all other components, including interest cost, amortization of prior service cost, curtailments and settlements, etc.). The operating expense component is reported with similar compensation costs while the non-operating expense components are reported in other income and expense. In addition, only the service cost component is eligible for capitalization as part of an asset such as inventory or property, plant and equipment. The guidance in ASU 2017-07 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years, and is effective for the Company beginning July 1, 2018. Because the expected operating expense component and non-operating expense components of net periodic benefit cost are not material to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, adoption of ASU 2017-07 is not expected to have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment” (“ASU 2017-04”). The amendments in ASU 2017-04 address concerns regarding the cost and complexity of the two-step goodwill impairment test, and remove the second step of the test. An entity will apply a one-step quantitative test and record the amount of goodwill impairment as the excess of a reporting unit’s carrying amount over its fair value, not to exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to the reporting unit. ASU 2017-04 does not amend the optional qualitative assessment of goodwill impairment. The guidance in ASU 2017-04 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and is effective for the Company beginning July 1, 2020. Adoption of ASU 2017-04 is not expected to have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-01, “Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business” (“ASU 2017-01”). The amendments in ASU 2017-01 clarify the definition of a business with the objective of adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of businesses and provide a screen to determine when an integrated set of assets and activities (collectively referred to as a “set”) is not a business. If the screen is not met, the amendments (1) require that to be considered a business, a set must include, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create output and (2) remove the evaluation of whether a market participant could replace the missing elements. The guidance in ASU 2017-01 is effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early application is permitted in certain circumstances. ASU 2017-01 is effective for the Company beginning July 1, 2018. Adoption of ASU 2017-01 is not expected to have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash” (“ASU 2016-18”). The amendments require that a statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in the total of cash, cash equivalents, and amounts generally described as restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. As a result, amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents should be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. The amendments do not provide a definition of restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. The guidance in ASU 2016-18 is effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early application is permitted in certain circumstances. ASU 2016-18 is effective for the Company beginning July 1, 2018. Adoption of ASU 2016-18 is not expected to have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments (a consensus of the Emerging Issues Task Force)” (“ASU 2016-15”). ASU 2016-15 addresses certain issues where diversity in practice was identified in classifying certain cash receipts and cash payments based on the guidance in ASC 230. ASC 230 is principles based and often requires judgment to determine the appropriate classification of cash flows as operating, investing or financing activities. The application of judgment has resulted in diversity in how certain cash receipts and cash payments are classified. Certain cash receipts and cash payments may have aspects of more than one class of cash flows. ASU 2016-15 clarifies that an entity will first apply any relevant guidance in ASC 230 and in other applicable topics. If there is no guidance that addresses those cash receipts and cash payments, an entity will determine each separately identifiable source or use and classify the receipt or payment based on the nature of the cash flow. If a receipt or payment has aspects of more than one class of cash flows and cannot be separated, classification will depend on the predominant source or use. The guidance in ASU 2016-15 is effective for public business entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early application is permitted in certain circumstances. ASU 2016-15 is effective for the Company beginning July 1, 2018. Adoption of ASU 2016-15 is not expected to have a material effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)” (“ASU 2016-02”), which introduces a new lessee model that brings substantially all leases onto the balance sheet. Under the new guidance, lessees are required to recognize a lease liability, which represents the discounted obligation to make future minimum lease payments and a related right-of-use asset. For public business entities, ASU 2016-02 is effective for financial statements issued for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early application is permitted. ASU 2016-02 is effective for the Company beginning July 1, 2019. The Company is evaluating the impact this guidance will have on its consolidated financial statements and expects the adoption will have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position resulting from the increase in assets and liabilities. In May 2014, the FASB issued accounting guidance which requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers under ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (“ASU 2014-09”). ASU 2014-09 will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in GAAP when it becomes effective. On August 12, 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date,” which defers the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year allowing early adoption as of the original effective date of January 1, 2017. The deferral results in the new accounting standard being effective for public business entities for annual reporting periods beginning after December 31, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. ASU 2014-09 is effective for the Company beginning July 1, 2018. The Company is in the process of evaluating the provisions of ASU 2014-09 and assessing its impact on the Company’s financial statements, information systems, business processes, and financial statement disclosures. The Company has analyzed its revenue streams and is in the process of performing detailed contract reviews for each stream, and evaluating the impact ASU 2014-09 may have on revenue recognition. The Company primarily recognizes revenue at point of sale or delivery and does not expect that this will change under the new standard. Based on its preliminary reviews, the Company does not expect that the adoption of ASU 2014-09 will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements; however, the Company’s assessment of contracts related to recent acquisitions is still in process. At a minimum, the Company anticipates expanded disclosures related to revenue in order to comply with ASU 2014-09. The Company will continue to evaluate the impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-09. Preliminary assessments made by the Company are subject to change. The Company has not yet concluded which transition method it will elect but will determine the transition method in the third quarter of fiscal 2018.

X
- Definition Business Description Basis Of Presentation Significant Accounting Policies And New Accounting Pronouncements. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | farm_BusinessDescriptionBasisOfPresentationSignificantAccountingPoliciesAndNewAccountingPronouncementsTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | farm_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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