COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states’ antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. As detailed below, the Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding captioned In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation . On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats, Inc. On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint. Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats, Inc. On August 6, 2020, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. The Court granted the end-user consumer plaintiffs’ motion on September 22, 2020 and deemed the version of the complaint filed on August 7, 2020 operative on October 19, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their seventh amended complaint. Between December 8, 2017 and June 11, 2020, additional purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought separate suits against 20 poultry producers, including Sanderson Farms and Agri Stats, Inc., which have been consolidated with the other cases. These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct purchaser class complaint described above; certain of the suits additionally allege related state-law and common-law claims, and related claims under federal and Georgia RICO statutes. Four complaints filed on June 12, 2020 also plead allegations of federal bid rigging. Since that time, an additional forty-eight individual actions have been filed, some of which also plead allegations of federal bid rigging. On January 29, 2021, the individual-action plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Those suits filed in the Northern District of Illinois are now pending in front of the same judge as the putative class action lawsuits. On October 30, 2020, direct purchaser plaintiffs, commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and end-user consumer plaintiffs filed motions for class certification. Defendants' oppositions to class certification were filed January 22, 2021. Class plaintiffs' replies in support of class certification were filed March 29, 2021. Those motions remain pending. On October 15, 2021, the Court ordered two different tracks of litigation with different timelines. The Court further clarified the two tracks at a December 20, 2021 hearing and in a December 20, 2021 order. One track is engaged in merits expert discovery. Plaintiffs proceeding on the second track will file a consolidated amended complaint on February 28, 2022. Otherwise, the second track does not have an agreed-upon schedule to date. It is possible additional individual actions may be filed. Department of Justice Antitrust Investigation The Company is aware that certain plaintiffs’ counsel in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation received from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, a subpoena that included a request to produce all discovery in the case to a grand jury. On June 27, 2019, the Court in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation permitted the United States Department of Justice to intervene in the case, as well as ordered certain discovery stayed until September 27, 2019. Before the discovery stay expired on September 27, 2019, the United States Department of Justice asked the Court in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation to extend the discovery stay for an additional six months. On September 25, 2019, the Court granted the additional stay of not less than three months. On October 16, 2019, after further consideration, the Court extended the stay until June 27, 2020. On December 18, 2019, the Court after further consideration ordered that the stay be lifted on March 31, 2020, with the exception of certain discovery related to alleged bid-rigging claims brought by plaintiffs on the second track in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation . The Company received a grand jury subpoena in connection with the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division investigation on September 9, 2019. The Company is complying with the subpoena and providing documents and information as requested by the Department of Justice in connection with its investigation. State of New Mexico, ex rel. Hector Balderas v. Koch Foods Inc., et al. On September 1, 2020, the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court against Agri Stats, Inc. and producer defendants, including the Company. The lawsuit is substantially similar to those brought in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation . The case also brings claims under the New Mexico Antitrust Act and New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as a common law unjust enrichment claim. Defendants responded to the complaint on February 1, 2021. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. State of Alaska v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al. On February 19, 2021, the Attorney General of the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit in Alaska state court against Agri Stats, Inc. and producer defendants, including the Company. The lawsuit is substantially similar to those brought in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation . The case also brings claims under Alaska's antitrust statute and the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, as well as a common law unjust enrichment claim. On May 12, 2021, certain defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 18, 2021, the Court heard arguments on the motions to dismiss, but deferred ruling on the motions pending jurisdictional discovery. State of Washington v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al. On August 6, 2020, the Company received a civil investigative demand ("CID") from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington seeking information in connection with its investigation of possible violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and/or the Sherman Act concerning contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce in the market for broiler chicken. The Company cooperated with the investigative demand and provided documents and information as requested by the Office of the Attorney General. On October 25, 2021, the Attorney General filed an action in Washington state court against Agri Stats, Inc. and producer defendants, including the Company. The lawsuit is substantially similar to those brought in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation . The complaint brings claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Sanderson Farms was served with the complaint on November 1, 2021. The Company filed an answer denying the substance of the allegations on January 21, 2022. Discovery is ongoing. We intend to defend the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation and related lawsuits vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail or the Department of Justice were to pursue charges, the Company could be liable for damages or other sanctions, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers’ compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and our subsidiaries and another poultry producer. The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support thereof. That motion was denied. On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and briefing was completed on September 4, 2018. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On January 6, 2020, the Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 27, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina under the first-to-file rule. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 17, 2020, and the Company filed its reply on July 1, 2020. On September 11, 2020, additional named grower plaintiffs filed an identical putative class action in the District Court of Colorado against Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods, Production, and Processing Divisions, as well as the other poultry producer defendants in the Oklahoma action. On October 14, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the first-to-file doctrine because it is substantively identical to the earlier-filed cases pending in Oklahoma and North Carolina. Briefing on that motion was completed on December 16, 2020. On September 18, 2020, another named grower plaintiff filed another duplicate class action in the District Court of Kansas against the same defendants as the Colorado action. On October 13, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the first-to-file doctrine because it is substantively identical to the earlier-filed cases pending in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Colorado. Briefing on that motion was completed on December 15, 2020. On October 8, 2020, new named grower plaintiffs filed another duplicate class action in the Northern District of California against the same defendants as the Colorado and Kansas actions. On October 23, 2020, the District Court of Kansas stayed proceedings in that action (other than those related to the first-to-file motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the multi-district litigation ("MDL") consolidation motion discussed below. On November 12, 2020, the District Court of Colorado stayed proceeding in that action (other than those related to the first-to-file motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the MDL consolidation motion discussed below. On October 6, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Oklahoma action moved to consolidate all of these duplicative cases into a MDL before the judge presiding over the Oklahoma case. Briefing on that motion was completed on November 6, 2020, and oral argument on the motion occurred on December 3, 2020. On December 15, 2020, the panel ordered that all actions be consolidated in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pretrial proceedings. Given the panel's ruling on consolidation, the Company does not expect rulings on the first-to-file motions in the various actions described above. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Court. The complaint is substantively identical to previous complaints. Fact discovery in the MDL is ongoing and is currently scheduled to end in August 2022. We intend to defend these cases vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. Antitrust Civil Investigative Demands On February 21, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. received an antitrust CID from the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, of the State of Florida. Among other things, the demand seeks information related to the Georgia Dock Index and other information on poultry and poultry products published by the Georgia Department of Agriculture and its Poultry Market News division. The Company is cooperating fully with the investigative demand, and we have responded to all requests received to date; however, we are unable to predict its outcome at this time. Separately, the Company is also aware that certain plaintiffs’ counsel in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation received from the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, of the State of Florida, an antitrust CID that includes a request to produce all documents submitted by the recipients to the Department of Justice relating to In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. The Company is also aware that certain plaintiffs’ counsel in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation received from the Louisiana Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General a CID that included a request to produce all deposition transcripts from the civil litigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these investigations at this time. Judy Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al. On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc. (“WMS”), were named in a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. To date, three other nearly identical putative class action complaints, each seeking to represent the same putative class, also were filed. The complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present. The plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways: (1) attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida; (2) receiving Agri Stats reports, as well as surveys taken and published by WMS; and (3) directly exchanging wage and benefits information with plant managers at other defendant broiler producers. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated complaint on or before November 14, 2019. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed on November 22, 2019. Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or before February 28, 2020; however, after the defendants filed their motions to dismiss, on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified defendants that they intended to file an amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 20, 2019. Plaintiffs name as defendants Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as ten other broiler chicken producers and their affiliates; three turkey producers and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and WMS. Plaintiffs brought their amended consolidated complaint on behalf of employees at broiler chicken and turkey processing plants and allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them. On January 9, 2020 and January 27, 2020, the court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two of the three nearly identical putative class action lawsuits. On March 12, 2020, the Court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the third nearly identical putative class action lawsuit. On March 2, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The Company also filed an individual motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against the Company. After several COVID-19 related extensions, plaintiffs filed their omnibus opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss on July 17, 2020. Defendants filed their reply brief on August 13, 2020. On September 16, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion without prejudice, finding that plaintiffs’ allegations against certain corporate defendant families, including Sanderson Farms, were deficient. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against Sanderson Farms, Inc. on November 2, 2020. Sanderson Farms filed a renewed motion to dismiss resisting plaintiffs' amended allegations. The Court denied that motion and allowed plaintiffs' case to go forward in an order dated March 10, 2021. Sanderson Farms filed an answer denying the substance of plaintiffs' allegations on April 7, 2021. Discovery in this case is underway. Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint on December 17, 2021, and the Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2022. Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs' motion on February 4, 2022. Plaintiffs' proposed Third Amended Complaint, among other things, adds new allegations, expands the putative class to include workers at hatcheries and feed mills, and extends the putative class period to January 1, 2000 through July 20, 2021. We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. Other On January 30, 2017, the Company received a letter from an attorney representing a putative shareholder demanding that the Company take action against current and/or former officers and directors of the Company for alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The shareholder asserted that the officers and directors (i) failed to take any action to stop the alleged antitrust conspiracy described above, despite their alleged knowledge of the conspiracy, and (ii) made and/or caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose the alleged conspiracy. The shareholder also asserted that certain directors engaged in “insider sales” from which they improperly benefited. In addition to demanding that the officers and directors be sued, the shareholder also demanded that the Company adopt unspecified corporate governance improvements. On February 9, 2017, pursuant to statutory procedures available in connection with demands of this type, the Company’s board of directors appointed a special committee of qualified directors to determine, after conducting a reasonable inquiry, whether it was in the Company’s best interests to pursue any of the actions demanded in the shareholder’s letter. On April 26, 2017, the special committee reported to the Company’s board of directors its determination that it was not in the Company’s best interests to take any of the demanded actions at that time, and that no governance improvements related to the subject matter of the demand were needed. On May 5, 2017, the special committee’s counsel informed the shareholder’s counsel of the committee’s determination. As of the date of filing of this report, and to the Company’s knowledge, no legal proceedings related to the shareholder’s demand have been filed. The Company is involved in various other claims and litigation incidental to its business. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, management, upon the advice of counsel, is of the opinion that the final outcome of currently pending matters, other than those discussed above, should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position. The Company recognizes the costs of legal defense for the legal proceedings to which it is a party in the periods incurred. After a considerable analysis of each case, the Company has determined that no accrual is required for any of the foregoing matters as of January 31, 2022. Future reserves may be required if losses are deemed reasonably estimable and probable due to changes in the Company’s assumptions, the effectiveness of legal strategies, or other factors beyond the Company’s control. Future results of operations may be materially affected by the creation of reserves or by accruals of losses to reflect any adverse determinations in these legal proceedings. |