| Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments We guarantee obligations of certain outside third parties, consisting primarily of leases, debt and grower loans, which are substantially collateralized by the underlying assets. Terms of the underlying debt cover periods up to 10 years, and the maximum potential amount of future payments as of April 1, 2017 , was $32 million . We also maintain operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of the underlying leased assets at the end of the term of the lease. The remaining terms of the lease maturities cover periods over the next 10 years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is $92 million , of which $84 million could be recoverable through various recourse provisions and an additional undeterminable recoverable amount based on the fair value of the underlying leased assets. The likelihood of material payments under these guarantees is not considered probable. At April 1, 2017 , and October 1, 2016 , no material liabilities for guarantees were recorded. We have cash flow assistance programs in which certain livestock suppliers participate. Under these programs, we pay an amount for livestock equivalent to a standard cost to grow such livestock during periods of low market sales prices. The amounts of such payments that are in excess of the market sales price are recorded as receivables and accrue interest. Participating suppliers are obligated to repay these receivables balances when market sales prices exceed this standard cost, or upon termination of the agreement. Our maximum commitment associated with these programs is limited to the fair value of each participating livestock supplier’s net tangible assets. The potential maximum commitment as of April 1, 2017 , was approximately $380 million . The total receivables under these programs were $5 million and $2 million at April 1, 2017 , and October 1, 2016 , respectively. These receivables are included, net of allowance for uncollectible amounts, in Accounts Receivable in our Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. Even though these programs are limited to the net tangible assets of the participating livestock suppliers, we also manage a portion of our credit risk associated with these programs by obtaining security interests in livestock suppliers’ assets. After analyzing residual credit risks and general market conditions, we have no allowance for these programs’ estimated uncollectible receivables at April 1, 2017 , and October 1, 2016 . When constructing new facilities or making major enhancements to existing facilities, we will occasionally enter into incentive agreements with local government agencies in order to reduce certain state and local tax expenditures. Under these agreements, we transfer the related assets to various local government entities and receive Industrial Revenue Bonds. We immediately lease the facilities from the local government entities and have an option to re-purchase the facilities for a nominal amount upon tendering the Industrial Revenue Bonds to the local government entities at various predetermined dates. The Industrial Revenue Bonds and the associated obligations for the leases of the facilities offset, and the underlying assets remain in property, plant and equipment. At April 1, 2017 , total amounts under these type of arrangements totaled $505 million . Contingencies We are involved in various claims and legal proceedings. We routinely assess the likelihood of adverse judgments or outcomes to those matters, as well as ranges of probable losses, to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. We record accruals for such matters to the extent that we conclude a loss is probable and the financial impact, should an adverse outcome occur, is reasonably estimable. Such accruals are reflected in the Company’s consolidated condensed financial statements. In our opinion, we have made appropriate and adequate accruals for these matters. Unless noted otherwise below, we believe the probability of a material loss beyond the amounts accrued to be remote; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if accruals are not adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Listed below are certain claims made against the Company and/or our subsidiaries for which the potential exposure is considered material to the Company’s consolidated condensed financial statements. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims made and intend to vigorously defend these matters. Below are the details of six lawsuits involving our beef, pork and prepared foods plants in which certain present and past employees allege that we failed to compensate them for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities, such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state laws. The plaintiffs seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. Each case is proceeding in its jurisdiction. • Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D. Iowa, February 6, 2007 - A jury trial was held involving our Storm Lake, Iowa, pork plant which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work activities. The trial court also awarded the plaintiffs liquidated damages, resulting in total damages awarded in the amount of $5,784,758 . The plaintiffs' counsel has also filed an application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $2,692,145 . We appealed the jury's verdict and trial court's award to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and judgment on August 25, 2014, and we filed a petition for rehearing on September 22, 2014, which was denied. We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted on June 8, 2015, and oral arguments before the Supreme Court occurred on November 10, 2015. On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s rulings and remanded to the trial court to allocate the lump sum award among the class participants. On remand, the trial court determined that the lump sum award should be allocated to class participants according to the method prescribed by plaintiffs’ expert at trial. The trial court has yet to enter a judgment. • Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008 - The trial court in this case, which involves our Perry and Waterloo, Iowa, pork plants, decertified the state law class and granted other pre-trial motions that resulted in judgment in our favor with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify this judgment. • Murray, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., C.D. Illinois, January 2, 2008 ; and DeVoss v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, C.D. Illinois, March 2, 2011 - These cases involve our Joslin, Illinois, beef plant and are in their preliminary stages. • Dozier, Southerland, et al. v. The Hillshire Brands Company, E.D. North Carolina, September 2, 2014 - This case involves our Tarboro, North Carolina, prepared foods plant. On March 25, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion for settlement totaling $425,000 , which includes all of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. • Awad, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., M.D. Tennessee, February 12, 2015 - On October 12, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion for approval of a $725,000 settlement, and plaintiffs filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted its preliminary approval of the parties’ joint motion and the application for attorneys’ fees and costs, on October 21, 2016, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These three actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation . Several amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on behalf of each putative class. The currently operative complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The complaints also allege that defendants “manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the Georgia Dock.” It is further alleged that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative classes. We filed motions to dismiss these complaints; the court has yet to rule on our motions. On October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Tyson Foods' stock between November 23, 2015, and October 7, 2016, filed a class action complaint against Tyson Foods, Inc., Donnie Smith and Dennis Leatherby in the Central District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, that our periodic filings contained materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose that the Company has colluded with other producers to manipulate the supply of broiler chickens in order to keep supply artificially low, as alleged in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation . Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Western District of Arkansas, and the Southern District of Ohio. Each of those cases have now been transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and consolidated, and lead plaintiffs have been appointed. A consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017, (which also named additional individual defendants). The consolidated complaint seek damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We filed a motion to dismiss this complaint; the trial court has yet to rule on our motion. On January 20, 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with an investigation related to the Company. We are cooperating with the investigation, which is at an early stage. Based upon the limited information we have, we believe the investigation is based upon the allegations in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation . On March 1, 2017, we received a civil investigative demand (CID) from the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, of the State of Florida. The CID requests information primarily related to possible anticompetitive conduct in connection with the Georgia Dock, a chicken products pricing index formerly published by the Georgia Department of Agriculture. We are cooperating with the Attorney General’s office. Our subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999. The complaint is filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the “respondents”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in connection with the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines in 1995 by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The Hillshire Brands Company. In late 2004, a labor arbiter ruled against the respondents and awarded the complainants PHP 3,453,664,710 (approximately US $69 million ) in damages and fees. The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Subsequent to the NLRC’s decision, the parties filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of which remained outstanding for several years. While various of those appeals, motions and/or petitions were pending, The Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without admitting liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of all claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange for payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an amount not to exceed PHP 342,287,800 (approximately US $6.8 million ). Based in part on its finding that the consideration to be paid to the complainants as part of such settlement was insufficient, the Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the respondents’ settlement motion and all motions for reconsideration thereof. The Supreme Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature the NLRC’s December 2006 ruling. As a result, the cases were remanded back before the NLRC to rule on the merits of the case. On December 15, 2016, we learned that the NLRC rendered its decision on November 29, 2016, regarding the respondents’ appeals regarding the labor arbiter’s 2004 ruling in favor of the complainants. The NLRC increased the award for 4,922 of the total 5,984 complainants to PHP 14,858,495,937 (approximately US $296 million ). However, the NLRC approved of a prior settlement reached with the group comprising approximately 18% of the class of 5,984 complainants, pursuant to which The Hillshire Brands Company agreed to pay each settling complainant PHP 68,000 (approximately US $1,353 ). The settlement payment was made on December 21, 2016, to the NLRC, which is responsible for distributing the funds to each settling complainant. On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions for reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set aside. The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in a resolution received on May 5, 2017. We will challenge the NLRC decision through appeals to the courts. We have recorded an accrual for this matter for the amount of loss that, at this time, we deem probable and enforceable. This accrual is reflected in the Company’s consolidated condensed financial statements and reflects an amount significantly less than the amount awarded by the labor arbiter in 2004 (i.e., PHP 3,453,664,710 (approximately US $69 million )). The ultimate enforceable loss is uncertain, and if our accrual is not adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations. |
