2.2.0.7 false CONTINGENCIES 12301 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCIES true false false false 1 USD false false Unit12 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Unit13 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 Unit1 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Unit14 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 CONTINGENCIES 0 tsn_ContingenciesAbstract tsn false na duration Contingencies false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Contingencies false 3 CONTINGENCIES 1 tsn_ContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock tsn false na duration Contingencies Disclosure Text Block false false false false false false false false false false false terselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> <div class="WordSection1"> <div> <div> NOTE 23: 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 Financial Statements. In our opinion, we have made appropriate and adequate accruals for these matters and 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 Financial Statements. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims made and intend to vigorously defend these matters. Several private lawsuits are pending against us alleging that we failed to compensate poultry plant employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of the FLSA. These lawsuits include DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (DeAsencio), filed on August 22, 2000, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This matter involves similar allegations that employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas. They seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict and final judgment entered in our favor on June 22, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. We sought rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 5, 2007. The United States Supreme Court denied our petition for a writ of certiorari on June 9, 2008. The new trial date has not been set. The other private lawsuits referred to above are Sheila Ackles, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (N. Dist. Alabama, October 23, 2006); McCluster, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M. Dist. Georgia, December 11, 2006); Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, December 21, 2006); Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. and Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, December 22, 2006); Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (S.D. Mississippi, February 9, 2007); Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Oklahoma, March 1, 2007); Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Arkansas, March 2, 2007); Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, March 5, 2007); Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, May 23, 2007) (the "Williams Case"). Similar to DeAsencio, each of these matters involves allegations that employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek or have sought to act as class representatives on behalf of all current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. On April 6, 2007, we filed a motion for transfer of the above named actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which was granted on August 17, 2007. These cases and five other cases subsequently filed involving the same allegations, Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Tennessee, January 30, 2008); Maldonado, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Tennessee, January 31, 2008); White, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Texas, February 1, 2008); Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Missouri, February 2, 2008); and Leak, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. North Carolina, February 6, 2008), were transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Georgia, In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation ("MDL Proceedings"). On January 2, 2008, the Court issued a Joint Scheduling and Case Management Order. This order granted Conditional Class Certification and called for notice to be given to potential putative class members via a third party administrator. The potential class members had until April 18, 2008, to "opt–in" to the class. Approximately 13,800 employees and former employees filed their consents to "opt-in" to the class. On October 15, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, which, if granted, would have extended the time period in which the plaintiffs could have sought damages. However, in addition to the consents already obtained, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to obtain corrected and reaffirmed opt-in consents that were previously filed in the matter of M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (N.D. Alabama, June 22, 1999). The deadline for filing these consents was December 31, 2008, and according to the third party administrator, approximately 4,000 reaffirmed consents were filed, some or all of which may be in addition to the approximately 13,800 consents filed previously. The parties have completed discovery at eight of our facilities and our corporate headquarters in Springdale, Arkansas. In July 2009 we filed class decertification motions for the eight facilities involved in discovery. We also filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for these eight facilities. Oral arguments for these motions occurred on February 3, 2010, and, on March 16, 2010, the Court granted partial summary judgment with respect to two unionized facilities and denied the remaining motions. The Court concluded that the activities at these two facilities met the definition of "clothes changing" under Section 203(o) of the FLSA and that the time engaged in pre- and post-shift donning and doffing is not compensable. The Court did not rule on whether Section 203(o) activity could begin the continuous work day, thereby making all walking, sanitizing and washing time after that activity compensable. We then filed a motion for certification of a permissive appeal on whether Section 203(o) activity can start the continuous workday and whether washing required clothing items is covered by Section 203(o). On April 23, 2010, the Court granted us permission to appeal these issues to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court also retained jurisdiction with respect to the eight facilities while staying proceedings with respect to seven. It then scheduled trial in the Williams Case for October 12, 2010. On April 16, 2010, the Court lifted a previously entered stay of discovery with respect to our remaining 32 facilities subject to the MDL Proceedings and ordered the parties to meet, confer, and report to the Court any discovery agreements and disputed issues within 45 days. On June 7, 2010, the Court issued a scheduling order which set the close of discovery for the remaining 32 facilities for May 31, 2012. On September 22, 2010, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay further proceedings in the MDL Proceedings, including the trial in the Williams case, in order to allow the parties an opportunity to explore settlement. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to lift the stay, and the Court granted this motion on November 15, 2010. The trial in the Williams Case is now scheduled to begin on February 14, 2011. We have pending eleven separate wage and hour actions involving TFM's plants located in Lexington, Nebraska (Lopez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., D. Nebraska, June 30, 2006), Garden City and Emporia, Kansas (Garcia, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Kansas, May 15, 2006), Storm Lake, Iowa (Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D. Iowa, February 6, 2007), Columbus Junction, Iowa (Robinson, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, September 12, 2007), Joslin, Illinois (Murray, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., C.D. Illinois, January 2, 2008), Dakota City, Nebraska (Gomez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., D. Nebraska, January 16, 2008), Madison, Nebraska (Acosta, et al. v Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Nebraska, February 29, 2008), Perry and Waterloo, Iowa (Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008); Council Bluffs, Iowa (Maxwell (f/k/a Salazar), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, April 29, 2008); Logansport, Indiana (Carter, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., N.D. Indiana, April 29, 2008); and Goodlettsville, Tennessee (Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc., and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., M.D. Tennessee, February 6, 2009). The actions allege we failed to pay employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for the time it takes to change into protective work uniforms, safety equipment and other sanitary and protective clothing worn by employees, and for walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas in violation of the FLSA and analogous 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. Trial in the Bouaphakeo case was originally set to begin on November 1, 2010 but was rescheduled for September 7, 2011. We also have pending one wage and hour action involving our Tyson Prepared Foods plant located in Jefferson, Wisconsin (Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., (Jefferson County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court, October 20, 2010) The plaintiffs allege that employees should be paid 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 the associated time it takes to walk to and from their workstations post-donning and pre-doffing of protective and sanitary clothing. Six named plaintiffs seek to act as state law class representatives on behalf of all current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On June 19, 2005, the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Environment of the State of Oklahoma filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against us, three of our subsidiaries and six other poultry integrators. This complaint was subsequently amended. As amended, the complaint asserts a number of state and federal causes of action including, but not limited to, counts under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and state-law public nuisance theories. The amended complaint asserts that defendants and certain contract growers who are not named in the amended complaint polluted the surface waters, groundwater and associated drinking water supplies of the Illinois River Watershed ("IRW") through the land application of poultry litter. Oklahoma asserts that this alleged pollution has also caused extensive injury to the environment (including soils and sediments) of the IRW and that the defendants have been unjustly enriched. Oklahoma's claims cover the entire IRW, which encompasses more than one million acres of land and the natural resources (including lakes and waterways) contained therein. Oklahoma seeks wide-ranging relief, including injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $800 million, an unspecified amount in punitive damages and attorneys' fees. We and the other defendants have denied liability, asserted various defenses, and filed a third-party complaint that asserts claims against other persons and entities whose activities may have contributed to the pollution alleged in the amended complaint. The district court has stayed proceedings on the third party complaint pending resolution of Oklahoma's claims against the defendants. On October 31, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join the Cherokee Nation as a required party or, in the alternative, for judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiffs' lack of standing. This motion was granted in part and denied in part on July 22, 2009. In its ruling, the district court dismissed Oklahoma's claims for cost recovery and for natural resources damages under CERCLA and for unjust enrichment under Oklahoma common law. This ruling also narrowed the scope of Oklahoma's remaining claims by dismissing all damage claims under its causes of action for Oklahoma common law nuisance, federal common law nuisance, and Oklahoma common law trespass, leaving only its claims for injunctive relief for trial. On August 18, 2009, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Oklahoma's claims for violations of the Oklahoma Registered Poultry Feeding Operations Act. Oklahoma later voluntarily dismissed the remainder of this claim. On September 2, 2009, the Cherokee Nation filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit. Their motion to intervene was denied on September 15, 2009, and the Cherokee Nation filed a notice of appeal of that ruling in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 17, 2009. A non-jury trial of the case began on September 24, 2009. At the close of Oklahoma's case-in-chief, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on RCRA, nuisance per se, and health risks related to bacteria. The defense rested its case on January 13, 2010, and closing arguments were held on February 11, 2010. On September 21, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Cherokee Nation's motion to intervene. On October 6, 2010 the Cherokee Nation and the State of Oklahoma filed a petition for rehearing or en banc review seeking reconsideration of this ruling. The Court of Appeals denied this petition. In September 2009, the National Water Commission ("CONAGUA"), an agency of the Mexican government's Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, sent an observation letter to our Mexican subsidiary, Tyson de Mexico ("TdM"), with respect to TdM's water usage at certain water wells that are part of its poultry production operations. This letter was in response to TdM's previous submission to CONAGUA of requested information relating to water usage from these wells from 2004 to 2007. In the observation letter, which contains an initial finding of facts, CONAGUA alleges that TdM may have failed to (i) report accurate water volume usage, (ii) install measuring equipment, (iii) provide evidence of water use exemptions, (iv) pay for applicable usage, and (v) properly measure water volume, all as required under water deeds held by TdM. On October 15, 2009, TdM responded to CONAGUA, denying the allegations as presented. On April 13, 2010, the regional CONAGUA office delivered its final determinations to TdM on this matter and claimed that TdM owed the agency approximately 55.9 million pesos (approximately US$4.6 million) for certain water usage during the period in question. TdM has appealed the regional office's final determinations to the administrative courts of CONAGUA in Mexico City. On May 8, 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of our employees in the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma styled Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (the "Armstrong Case"). The lawsuit was brought by a group of 52 poultry growers who allege that certain of our live production practices in Oklahoma constitute fraudulent inducement, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, gross negligence, unconscionability, violations of the Oklahoma Business Sales Act, Deceptive Trade Practice violations, violations of the Consumer Protection Act, and conversion, as well as other theories of recovery. The plaintiffs sought damages in an unspecified amount. On October 30, 2009, 20 additional growers represented by the same attorney filed a lawsuit against us in the same court asserting the same or similar claims, which is styled Clardy, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (the "Clardy Case"). In both of these cases we have denied all allegations of wrongdoing. In June 2009, the plaintiffs in the Armstrong case requested an expedited trial date for a smaller group of plaintiffs they claimed were facing imminent financial peril. The Court ultimately severed a group of 10 plaintiffs from the Armstrong Case, and a trial began on March 15, 2010. There were numerous irregularities and rulings during the trial which we believe to have been legally erroneous and highly prejudicial to our right to a fair trial. On April 1, 2010, the jury returned a verdict against us and one of our employees, and on April 2, 2010, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict against us. After a dispute caused by inconsistencies between the multiple verdict forms completed by the jury and apparent confusion by the jury as to how to complete those verdict forms, the Court entered a final judgment in the amount of $8,655,735. Subsequent to the trial, the presiding judge disqualified from the cases and the Oklahoma Supreme Court appointed a new judge to the cases. The Company filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict. Those motions were denied. The Company intends to appeal to overturn the verdict. We filed a motion with the trial court to change venue from McCurtain County on the grounds that the numerous irregularities that occurred during the trial, coupled with the attendant publicity, resulted in community bias which would prevent the Company from receiving a fair trial in McCurtain County. The trial court granted this motion and the case will be transferred to Choctaw County, Oklahoma. We filed another motion, which the trial court also granted, to stay all future trials of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Armstrong Case and the Clardy Case pending the outcome of the appeal of the first trial. We believe numerous and substantial legal errors were made by the Court during the trial and that a review of and guidance on these issues by the appellate court could have a substantial impact on the outcome of future trials in the Armstrong Case and the Clardy Case.  </div></div></div> </div> NOTE 23: CONTINGENCIES We are involved in various claims and legal proceedings. We routinely assess the likelihood of adverse judgments or outcomes to those false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Contingencies Disclosure Text Block No authoritative reference available. false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true