| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General The Company is a party to many routine contracts in which it provides general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities because, based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Purchase Obligations The Company will sometimes enter into noncancelable contracts to purchase capital equipment and certain commodities such as corn, soybean meal, wheat and electricity. As of December 29, 2019 , the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $328.6 million payable in 2020 . There were no outstanding purchase contracts in 2021. Operating Leases Additional information regarding operating leases is included in “Note 9. Leases.” Financial Instruments The Company’s loan agreements generally obligate the Company to reimburse the applicable lender for incremental increased costs due to a change in law that imposes (1) any reserve or special deposit requirement against assets of, deposits with or credit extended by such lender related to the loan, (2) any tax, duty or other charge with respect to the loan (except standard income tax) or (3) capital adequacy requirements. In addition, some of the Company’s loan agreements contain a withholding tax provision that requires the Company to pay additional amounts to the applicable lender or other financing party, generally if withholding taxes are imposed on such lender or other financing party as a result of a change in the applicable tax law. These increased cost and withholding tax provisions continue for the entire term of the applicable transaction, and there is no limitation on the maximum additional amounts the Company could be obligated to pay under such provisions. Any failure to pay amounts due under such provisions generally would trigger an event of default, and, in a secured financing transaction, would entitle the lender to foreclose upon the collateral to realize the amount due. Litigation The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the Company’s opinion, it has made appropriate and adequate accruals for claims where necessary; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if significantly different than the amounts accrued, the ultimate outcome could have a material effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. For a discussion of the material legal proceedings and claims, see Part I, Item 3. “Legal Proceedings.” Below is a summary of some of these material proceedings and claims. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made and intends to vigorously defend these cases. Tax Claims and Proceedings During 2014 and 2015 the Mexican Tax Authorities opened a review of Avícola Pilgrim’s Pride de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“APPM”) in regards to tax years 2009 and 2010, respectively. In both instances, the Mexican Tax Authorities claim that controlled company status did not exist for certain subsidiaries because APPM did not own 50% of the shares in voting rights of Incubadora Hidalgo, S. de R.L de C.V. and Commercializadora de Carnes de México S. de R.L de C.V. (both in 2009) and Pilgrim’s Pride, S. de R. L. de C.V. (in 2010). As a result, APPM should have considered dividends paid out of these subsidiaries partially taxable since a portion of the dividend amount was not paid from the net tax profit account (CUFIN). APPM is currently appealing. Amounts under appeal are $24.3 million and $16.1 million for tax years 2009 and 2010, respectively. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time. Other Claims and Proceedings Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against PPC and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 8, 2017 and October 22, 2019, 32 individual direct action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; U.S. Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro Holdings, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-4616; The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for Central Grocers, Inc. et al., v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05345; BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05877; United Supermarkets LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06693; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06316 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on September 17, 2018, following Defendants’ successful motion to transfer); Shamrock Foods Company, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-7284; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Quirch Foods, LLC, f/k/a Quirch Foods Co. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-08511; Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00354, Hooters of America, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00390, Darden Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00530; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00638; Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01283; Conagra Brands, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02190, Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02758; Save Mart Supermarkets v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02805; Walmart Inc., et al. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03915 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on June 11, 2019, following Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to transfer); Services Group of America, Inc. v. Tyson Food, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04194; Restaurants of America, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-04824; Anaheim Wings, d/b/a Hooters of Anaheim, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-05229; Amigos Meat Distributors, LP, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-05424; PJ Food Service, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-6141; The Golub Corporation, et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06955; and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01605 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico)) were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by individual direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will be consolidated. On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) filed a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months. Following a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Court granted the government’s motion to intervene, ordering a limited stay first until September 27, 2019, and then, following a subsequent request for an extension by the DOJ, to June 27, 2020. On July 1, 2019, the DOJ issued a subpoena to PPC in connection with its investigation. PPC is currently in the process of complying with the subpoena. On December 18, 2019, the Court reset the date for the lifting of the stay to March 31, 2020. On January 29, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order through trial, which contemplates class certification briefing and related expert reports proceeding from June 18, 2020 to November 25, 2020, the close of all merits fact discovery on December 18, 2020, and summary judgment briefing and related expert reports proceeding from January 15, 2021 to August 10, 2021. The Court has set a trial date of April 4, 2022. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC’s stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC’s failure to disclose that (1) PPC colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (3) PPC’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC’s industry was anticompetitive and seeks compensatory damages. On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision and for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion on April 25, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. As of the date of these financial statements, the plaintiff has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the “Grower Litigation” ). The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it considered and granted only certain other defendants’ motions challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (“Bankruptcy Court”) enjoined the plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to PPC’s bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2009. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On March 13, 2018, PPC notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction. On January 6, 2020, the Court held a motion hearing and denied the pending Rule 12 motion and lifted the stay on discovery. The Court also set a briefing schedule for the plaintiffs to file a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint in light of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is due on January 27, 2020, and Defendants’ response is due on February 18, 2020. A status conference is set for April 6, 2020. On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action styled as DiSalvio v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30207, was brought against all of PPC’s directors and its Chief Financial Officer, Fabio Sandri, in the District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent PPC and its officers from engaging in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, and issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation. On April 17, 2017, a related stockholder derivative action styled Brima v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30308, was brought against all of PPC’s directors and its Chief Financial Officer in the District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado. The Brima complaint contains largely the same allegations as the DiSalvio complaint. On May 4, 2017, the plaintiffs in both the DiSalvio and Brima actions moved to (1) consolidate the two stockholder derivative cases, (2) stay the consolidated action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan putative securities class action, and (3) appoint co-lead counsel. The Court granted the motion on May 8, 2017, staying the proceedings pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan action. On January 24, 2018 a stockholder derivative action styled as Sciabacucchi v. JBS S.A. et al. was brought against all of PPC’s directors, JBS S.A., JBS USA Holdings and several members of the Batista family, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties arising out of PPC’s acquisition of Moy Park. On May 24, 2018, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis filed a derivative complaint, which was virtually identical to the Sciabacucchi complaint. Both complaints sought compensatory damages. On July 2, 2018, the Chancery Court granted a stipulation consolidating the cases and making the first complaint (Sciabacucchi) the operative complaint. Also by stipulation, various defendants have been voluntarily dismissed from the case without prejudice. The remaining defendants are JBS S.A., JBS USA Holding, and directors Lovette, Nogueira de Souza, Tomazoni, and Molina. PPC also remains in the case as a nominal defendant. On March 15, 2019, the Chancery Court denied the non-PPC defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result, the case proceeded to discovery, and trial was scheduled to commence in November 2020. On October 3, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation agreeing to settle the dispute for (1) a cash payment to PPC by the non-PPC defendants of $42.5 million less any fees and expenses awarded to the plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as any applicable taxes, and (2) corporate governance changes to be implemented by PPC. No portion of the settlement amount will be paid by PPC to the non-PPC defendants. The settlement was approved by the Court of Chancery on January 28, 2020. Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against PPC and a number of other chicken producers, as well as WMS (Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) and Agri Stats. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing plant production and maintenance workers (“Plant Workers”). They allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act and seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present. The four cases are Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-2521; Earnest v. Perdue Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02680; Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02960; and Avila v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-03018 (together, the “Wages Litigation”). On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered the consolidation of the four cases for pretrial purposes. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 22, 2019. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs informed the defendants and the Court they would be amending their complaint, which they did on December 20, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint asserts largely similar allegations to the pleadings in the consolidated complaint extended to include more class members and turkey processors as well as chicken. The defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint are due on March 2, 2020, with oppositions due on April 24, 2020 and replies on May 21, 2020. PPC believes it has strong defenses in each of the above litigations and intends to contest them vigorously. PPC cannot predict the outcome of these actions nor when they will be resolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in any of these litigations, PPC could be liable for damages, which could be material and could adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. J&F Investigation On May 3, 2017, certain officers of J&F Investimentos S.A. (“J&F,” and together with the companies controlled by J&F, the “J&F Group”), a company organized in Brazil and an indirect controlling stockholder of the Company, including a former senior executive and former board members of the Company, entered into cooperation agreements ( acordos de colaboração ) (collectively, the “Cooperation Agreements”) with the Office of the Prosecutor General ( Procuradoria-Geral da República ), or PGR, in connection with certain illicit conduct by J&F and such individuals acting in their capacity as J&F executives. The details of such illicit conduct are set forth in separate annexes to the Cooperation Agreements, and include admissions of improper payments to politicians and political parties in Brazil during a ten-year period in exchange for receiving, or attempting to receive, favorable treatment for certain J&F Group companies in Brazil. On June 5, 2017, J&F, for itself and as the controlling shareholder of the J&F Group companies, entered into a leniency agreement (the “Leniency Agreement”) with the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público Federal), or MPF, whereby J&F assumed responsibility for the conduct that was described in the annexes to the Cooperation Agreements. In connection with the Leniency Agreement, J&F has agreed to pay a fine of 10.3 billion Brazilian reais (R$), adjusted for inflation, over a 25 -year period. J&F has made five R$50.0 million payments, representing R$250.0 million of the total fine, which payments have been accepted by the MPF. Various proceedings by Brazilian governmental authorities remain pending against J&F and certain of its former or current officers seeking to invalidate the Cooperation Agreements and impose more severe penalties for additional alleged illicit conduct that was not disclosed in the annexes to the Cooperation Agreements. On December 11, 2017, the PGR requested to the STF the termination of the Cooperation Agreements executed by Joesley Mendonça Batista and a former executive of J&F alleging, among others, that they received improper support by a member of the PGR on the negotiation of their Cooperation Agreements. On May 17, 2018, the PGR requested to the Federal Supreme Court ( Supremo Tribunal Federal ), or STF, the termination of the Cooperation Agreements executed by Wesley Mendonça Batista and another J&F executive on the same grounds. Within such proceedings, on December 17, 2018, the STF issued a ruling that there is no necessary link between the termination of the Cooperation Agreements, on the one hand, and the Leniency Agreement on the other hand and that the termination of the Cooperation Agreements would not automatically invalidate the Leniency Agreement. However, a final decision by the STF on the termination of the Cooperation Agreements may change such ruling and directly impact the Leniency Agreement. On April 30, 2019, in connection with an administrative proceeding relating to the Leniency Agreement, the MPF argued that if the STF terminated the Cooperation Agreements, such termination could have repercussions with respect to the Leniency Agreement. According to the MPF, such repercussions could include termination of the Leniency Agreement and the inclusion of additional fines or other obligations that would be payable by J&F. We cannot assure you that the Leniency Agreement will not be impacted by the termination of any of the Cooperation Agreements or that the MPF will not continue to argue to the STF that the termination of the Cooperation Agreements by the STF should affect the Leniency Agreement. If the Leniency Agreement is terminated or nullified, the facts included therein could be exposed to potential proceedings and sanctions by Brazilian governmental authorities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation and financial condition. In accordance with the terms of the Leniency Agreement, J&F is conducting internal investigations and has engaged outside advisors to assist in conducting these investigations, which are ongoing, and with which we are fully cooperating. In addition, JBS S.A., JBS USA and the Company have (i) conducted an independent investigation in connection with matters disclosed in the Leniency Agreement and the Cooperation Agreements; and (ii) communicated with relevant U.S. authorities, including the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, regarding the factual findings of these investigations. Additionally, JBS S.A. and the Company have taken, and are continuing to take, measures to enhance their compliance programs, including to prevent and detect bribery and corruption. We cannot predict when these investigations will be completed or the results of such investigations, including whether any litigation will be brought against us or the outcome or impact of any resulting litigation, nor can we predict any potential actions that may be taken by such relevant U.S. authorities, which could include substantial fines and penalties, violations that impact our disclosure, and which could also result in litigations by shareholders against us. In addition, we cannot guarantee that the investigations will not uncover other instances of prior illicit conduct by any of the parties to the Leniency Agreement or any of the Cooperation Agreements, or by other parties affiliated with us (including, without limitation, any of our shareholders, directors, officers, employees, agents or third parties acting in our name) which are not party to the Leniency Agreement or the Cooperation Agreements. It is possible that other facts not covered by the Leniency Agreement or the Cooperation Agreements will be discovered in the future. If that occurs, Brazilian authorities may bring proceedings and impose sanctions, fines or other penalties in relation to any such additional uncovered facts and may seek to use such discoveries to invalidate or terminate the Leniency Agreement or the Cooperation Agreements. Separately, Joesley Mendonça Batista and Wesley Mendonça Batista (who equally and indirectly own 100% of the equity interests in J&F), JBS S.A. and other defendants are party to administrative proceedings and/or sanctioning administrative proceedings initiated by the CVM. The matters under investigation with respect to Joesley Mendonça Batista and Wesley Mendonça Batista include possible violations of Brazilian laws regarding the following: insider trading in regulated market transactions, management due diligence obligations in connection with internal controls, misuse of JBS S.A.’s assets and conflicts of interest in approving management accounts. On September 25, 2018, the Board of Commissioners of the CVM rejected the settlement proposal submitted jointly by Joesley Mendonça Batista and Wesley Mendonça Batista, JBS S.A. and the other defendants to end the administrative proceedings related to insider trading in regulated market transactions and management due diligence obligations in connection with internal controls. On December 3, 2019, the Board of Commissioners of the CVM rejected their settlement proposal to close the sanctioning administrative proceeding regarding the misuse of JBS S.A.’s assets. These proceedings in Brazil are ongoing and their results cannot be predicted. Any further adverse developments in these, or other, matters involving Joesley Mendonça Batista and Wesley Mendonça Batista or other parties affiliated with us (including, without limitation, any of our shareholders, directors, officers, employees, agents or third parties acting in our name), could subject us to potential fines or penalties set forth under applicable law, materially adversely affect our public perception or reputation and could have a material adverse effect on us, including: (1) threatening our ability to obtain new financing, which could impair our ability to operate our business; and (2) shifting management’s focus to these matters, which could harm our ability to meet our strategic objectives. Additionally, while we have taken, and are continuing to take, measures to enhance our compliance programs, which are intended to assist us in detecting and prevent bribery and corruption, there can be no assurance that these efforts will enable us to detect or prevent all such activities. We will monitor the results of the investigations and J&F will continue to engage in dialogue with the relevant U.S. authorities. Any proceedings that require us to make substantial payments, affect our reputation or otherwise interfere with our business operations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. |
