Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies DBCP Litigation Beginning in December 1993, certain of our U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane (“DBCP”) during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against our U.S. subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii, Delaware and the Philippines. On October 14, 2004, two of our subsidiaries were served with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to DBCP. On January 2, 2009, three of our subsidiaries were served with multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al . filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents. An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP actions in 13 . Commitments and Contingencies (continued) Texas and may have participated in the settlement of those actions. On June 27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, our subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of Costa Rica. On September 22, 2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on November 16, 2009 entered an order conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with our subsidiaries. Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on May 17, 2012. On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, our subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts of Costa Rica. Two additional DBCP-related lawsuits were filed in Costa Rica in 2015, which have since been dismissed by the Court on procedural grounds. On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one of our subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include 229 claimants who had cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29, 2013 and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On September 21, 2012, our subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all remaining plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal on statute of limitations grounds of related cases by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds as to all remaining plaintiffs on the basis of the court’s May 27, 2014 ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor of all defendants for the claims still pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of the summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district court entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs’ claims on September 22, 2014. On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressly limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more than 2,600 ) plaintiffs who had not previously filed claims in Louisiana. On August 11, 2015, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims of these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rehearing en Banc with the Third Circuit, which was granted on September 22, 2015. On September 2, 2016, the Third Circuit en banc reversed the District Court’s dismissal on first-filed doctrine grounds of the claims of approximately 229 of the plaintiffs and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has canceled the hearing previously scheduled for March 9, 2017 to hear oral argument in the appeal from the grant of summary judgment to defendants on the statute of limitations issue and has advised the parties that its decision on the appeal, which remains pending, will be issued on the basis of the written pleadings filed by the parties. On June 2, 2017, the Third Circuit issued a Petition for Certification of State Law to the Delaware Supreme Court to resolve the complex procedural question pending on appeal regarding the applicability of the first-filed doctrine for tolling the statute of limitations on class actions claims. The Delaware Supreme Court has accepted certification of the pending question of law and the parties have filed their respective briefs with the court. On March 15, 2018, the Delaware Supreme court decided the complex procedural question in favor of the plaintiffs and is in the process of returning the case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for further proceedings. In Hawaii, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in March 2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants’ favor at the trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. On October 21, 2015, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the Hawaii Court of Appeals and the Hawaii state trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment against the DBCP plaintiffs on statute of limitations grounds. The Hawaii Supreme Court remanded the claims of six remaining plaintiffs back to the Hawaii state trial court for further proceedings. 13 . Commitments and Contingencies (continued) Kunia Well Site In 1980, elevated levels of certain chemicals were detected in the soil and ground-water at a plantation leased by one of our U.S. subsidiaries in Honolulu, Hawaii (the “Kunia Well Site”). Shortly thereafter, our subsidiary discontinued the use of the Kunia Well Site and provided an alternate water source to area well users and the subsidiary commenced its own voluntary cleanup operation. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) identified the Kunia Well Site for potential listing on the National Priorities List (“NPL”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. On December 16, 1994, the EPA issued a final rule adding the Kunia Well Site to the NPL. On September 28, 1995, our subsidiary entered into an order (the “Order”) with the EPA to conduct the remedial investigation and the feasibility study of the Kunia Well Site. Under the terms of the Order, our subsidiary submitted a remedial investigation report in November 1998 and a final draft feasibility study in December 1999 (which was updated from time to time) for review by the EPA. The EPA approved the remedial investigation report in February 1999 and the feasibility study on April 22, 2003. As a result of communications with the EPA in 2001, we recorded a charge of $15.0 million in the third quarter of 2001 to increase the recorded liability to the estimated expected future cleanup cost for the Kunia Well Site to $19.1 million . Based on conversations with the EPA in the third quarter of 2002 and consultation with our legal counsel and other experts, we recorded a charge of $7.0 million during the third quarter of 2002 to increase the accrual for the expected future clean-up costs for the Kunia Well Site to $26.1 million . On September 25, 2003, the EPA issued the Record of Decision (“ROD”). The EPA estimates in the ROD that the remediation costs associated with the cleanup of the Kunia Well Site will range from $12.9 million to $25.4 million and will last approximately 10 years . It remains to be determined how long the remediation will actually last. On January 13, 2004, the EPA deleted a portion of the Kunia Well Site (Northeast section) from the NPL. On May 2, 2005, our subsidiary signed a Consent Decree with the EPA for the performance of the clean-up work for the Kunia Well Site. On September 27, 2005, the U.S. District Court for Hawaii approved and entered the Consent Decree. Based on findings from remedial investigations at the Kunia Well Site, our subsidiary continues to evaluate with the EPA the clean-up work currently in progress in accordance with the Consent Decree. We increased the liability by $0.4 million during 2017 and 2016 and reduced the liability by $0.8 million during 2015 due to changes to the remediation work being performed related to the Kunia Well Site clean-up. We included these charges/(credits) in asset impairment and other charges, net on our Consolidated Statements of Income. The estimates are between $13.7 million and $28.7 million . The estimate on which our accrual is based, totals $13.8 million . As of March 30, 2018 , there is $13.5 million included in other noncurrent liabilities and $0.3 million included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the Kunia Well Site clean-up, which we expect to expend in the next 12 months. We expect to expend approximately $0.3 million in 2018, $1.1 million in each year from 2019 through 2021 and $0.9 million in 2022. Additional Information In addition to the foregoing, we are involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions incident to our operations, both as plaintiff and defendant. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, none of these other claims are currently expected to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or our cash flows. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in all of the above matters. |