Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 28, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
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, Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines. In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of our U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii. At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred. A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is fully briefed and remains pending. On November 15, 1999, one of our subsidiaries was served in two actions entitled Godoy Rodriguez, et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., et al. and Martinez Puerto, et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., et al., in the 29th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles, Louisiana. At this time, it is not known how many of the approximately 315 remaining Godoy Rodriguez and Martinez Puerto plaintiffs are making claims against our subsidiary. On May 25, 2012, a co-defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the actions on grounds of limitations. Our subsidiary joinded in that motion for summary judgment, which will be heard on November 15, 2012. 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 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. 11. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) 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 conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with our subsidiaries. There remain approximately 396 Costa Rican plaintiffs on file in these California actions who purport to assert claims against our subsidiary out of 760 Costa Rican plaintiffs. The court has directed that 100 of the 760 plaintiffs be randomly selected for sperm testing in Costa Rica to ascertain whether they are experiencing any injury related to DBCP exposure. On October 23, 2012, the plaintiffs indicated their intention to defer the starting of the testing pending the court's ruling on a motion they say they intend to file to stay the California actions while they seek to litigate their claims in the courts of Costa Rica. On July 13, 2011, one of our subsidiaries was served with multiple complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of 121 Panamanian residents, 72 Costa Rican residents and 68 Ecuadorian residents who claim injury from DBCP exposure. 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. On January 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On February17, 2012, our subsidiary filed its answer to the third amended complaint. On April 6, 2012, our subsidiary joined in a motion for summary judgment on grounds of limitations. The hearing on the motion was rescheduled for August 15, 2012. On September 17, 2012, the court granted the motion and dismissed the actions with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In February 2011, a group of former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Philippines against two of our subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to DBCP. The trial court dismissed the complaint against our subsidiaries on October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, scheduled for hearing on November 9, 2012, which our subsidiaries have opposed. In August 2011, approximately 2,500 banana workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, captioned Macasa, et al. v. Dole Food Co. Inc., et al., against one of our subsidiaries again claiming injury from DBCP exposure. On February 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding approximately 500 more claimants to the action. Based upon an initial review, it appears that all of the plaintiffs in this action were claimants in a prior DBCP action in the Philippines that was dismissed in 2002 and that the claims of such plaintiffs are prone to being barred by limitations. A demurrer on limitations grounds was filed on April 24, 2012 and joined in by our subsidiary. That motion was granted on August 7, 2012 and the court entered judgment against the plaintiffs dismissing the action with prejudice on September 25, 2012. On July 11, 2012, one of our subsidiaries was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for the County of New Castle, captioned Chaverri, et al. v. Dole Food Co. Inc., et al., on behalf of 30 Panamanian, Costa Rican, and Ecuadorean plaintiffs. 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. Based upon an initial review, it appears that the complaint is duplicative of the complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and served on one of our subsidiaries on July 13, 2011. On June 21, 2012, a co-defendant appeared and moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that each of the plaintiffs has a first-filed claim pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Our subsidiary has been granted an indefinite extension of time to respond to the complaint pending the court's decision on whether to hear the action or dismiss it in favor of the earlier filed Louisiana actions. On May 31 and June 1, 2012, one of our subsidiaries was named, but has not yet been served, in eight actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of 2,930 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 2,930 plaintiffs include 230 plaintiffs who have cases currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On June 20, 2012, a co-defendant appeared and moved to dismiss the claims of the 230 plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On August 22, 2012, the court dismissed the actions determined to be duplicative of the actions cases first filed in such court. Our subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who were not already on file in Louisiana. 11. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) Pineapple Class Action Litigation On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against certain of our subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold^® Extra Sweet pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996 to May 6, 2003. The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On February 18, 2005, our subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Between March 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004, three alleged individual consumers separately filed putative class action complaints against us and certain of our subsidiaries in the state court of California on behalf of residents of California who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold^® Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. On November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professional Code. On September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification. On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying class certification. On February 29, 2012, the oral argument hearing on the appeal was held. On March 7, 2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of class certification was upheld. On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against our subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold^® Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000. Our subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on October 12, 2006. On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. Our subsidiaries filed an opposition on January 22, 2009 to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009. On November 29, 2011, the court denied the motion to certify a class action. European Union Antitrust Investigation On June 2, 2005, one of our German subsidiaries was visited by the antitrust authority of the European Union (“EU”) as part of its investigation of certain of our overseas subsidiaries as well as other produce companies for possible violations of the EU’s competition laws. Our subsidiaries cooperated fully with the investigation. On October 17, 2008, the European Commission concluded its investigation without finding any infringement of EU competition rules by, or imposing any fines on, our subsidiaries. The European Commission did, however, find that Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co KG (“Weichert”), an entity in which one of our subsidiaries formerly held an indirect 80% noncontrolling interest, infringed EU competition rules and imposed upon it a €14.7 million ($18.9 million using exchange rates as of September 28, 2012) fine. The European Commission has asserted that we controlled Weichert during the period by virtue of our subsidiary’s former, indirect noncontrolling interest and has therefore held that we are jointly and severally liable for Weichert’s payment of the fine. On December 31, 2008, we filed an appeal of this determination on grounds, among others, that Weichert did not violate EU competition rules and that, in any event, we cannot be held jointly and severally liable for Weichert’s acts under applicable German law. On April 14, 2010, Weichert filed a statement of intervention in support of our appeal seeking annulment of the European Commission’s determination. A hearing was held on February 1, 2012 for oral argument on the appeal, which remains pending. Breach of Contract Litigation On July 31, 2003, Net Results, Inc., a consulting company, filed a complaint alleging breach of contract against one of our subsidiaries in an action styled Net Results, Inc. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce Company in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (Miami-Dade County, Florida). On April 15, 2008, the plaintiff amended its complaint to include an additional claim of anticipatory repudiation and sought a significant amount of damages. Our subsidiary denied liability and brought a counterclaim against the plaintiff. In November 2009, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $10 million. Our subsidiary’s post-trial motions requested, among other things, that the jury’s verdict be set aside and that judgment be entered in favor of our subsidiary. On March 25, 2010, the trial court denied the motions and entered a final judgment in the amount of $15.7 million (plus attorneys’ fees). On April 15, 2010, our subsidiary appealed the judgment. The oral argument hearing on the appeal of our subsidiary was held on July 13, 2011. On October 19, 2011, the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida ruled in favor of the appeal of our subsidiary and reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. 11. 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. The undiscounted estimates are between $14.8 million and $28.7 million. The undiscounted estimate on which our accrual is based totals $21.9 million and is discounted using a 5.0% rate. As of September 28, 2012, there is $15.4 million included in other noncurrent liabilities and $1.7 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 $1.0 million in cash per year for the following four years. Certain portions of the EPA’s estimates have been discounted using a 5.0% interest rate. 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. Additional Information At this time, management is not able to evaluate the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in any of the above-described matters. Accordingly, management is not able to estimate the range or amount of loss, if any, from any of the above-described matters and no accruals or expenses have been recorded for these matters as of September 28, 2012, except as related to the Kunia Well Site. 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 our results of operations, financial position or our cash flows. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in all of the above matters.

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, Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines.

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of our U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii. At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred. A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is fully briefed and remains pending.

On November 15, 1999, one of our subsidiaries was served in two actions entitled Godoy Rodriguez, et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., et al. and Martinez Puerto, et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., et al., in the 29th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles, Louisiana. At this time, it is not known how many of the approximately 315 remaining Godoy Rodriguez and Martinez Puerto plaintiffs are making claims against our subsidiary. On May 25, 2012, a co-defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the actions on grounds of limitations. Our subsidiary joinded in that motion for summary judgment, which will be heard on November 15, 2012.

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 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.

11. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

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 conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with our subsidiaries. There remain approximately 396 Costa Rican plaintiffs on file in these California actions who purport to assert claims against our subsidiary out of 760 Costa Rican plaintiffs. The court has directed that 100 of the 760 plaintiffs be randomly selected for sperm testing in Costa Rica to ascertain whether they are experiencing any injury related to DBCP exposure. On October 23, 2012, the plaintiffs indicated their intention to defer the starting of the testing pending the court's ruling on a motion they say they intend to file to stay the California actions while they seek to litigate their claims in the courts of Costa Rica.

On July 13, 2011, one of our subsidiaries was served with multiple complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of 121 Panamanian residents, 72 Costa Rican residents and 68 Ecuadorian residents who claim injury from DBCP exposure. 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. On January 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On February17, 2012, our subsidiary filed its answer to the third amended complaint. On April 6, 2012, our subsidiary joined in a motion for summary judgment on grounds of limitations. The hearing on the motion was rescheduled for August 15, 2012. On September 17, 2012, the court granted the motion and dismissed the actions with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In February 2011, a group of former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Philippines against two of our subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to DBCP. The trial court dismissed the complaint against our subsidiaries on October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, scheduled for hearing on November 9, 2012, which our subsidiaries have opposed.

In August 2011, approximately 2,500 banana workers from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, captioned Macasa, et al. v. Dole Food Co. Inc., et al., against one of our subsidiaries again claiming injury from DBCP exposure. On February 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding approximately 500 more claimants to the action. Based upon an initial review, it appears that all of the plaintiffs in this action were claimants in a prior DBCP action in the Philippines that was dismissed in 2002 and that the claims of such plaintiffs are prone to being barred by limitations. A demurrer on limitations grounds was filed on April 24, 2012 and joined in by our subsidiary. That motion was granted on August 7, 2012 and the court entered judgment against the plaintiffs dismissing the action with prejudice on September 25, 2012.

On July 11, 2012, one of our subsidiaries was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for the County of New Castle, captioned Chaverri, et al. v. Dole Food Co. Inc., et al., on behalf of 30 Panamanian, Costa Rican, and Ecuadorean plaintiffs. 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. Based upon an initial review, it appears that the complaint is duplicative of the complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and served on one of our subsidiaries on July 13, 2011. On June 21, 2012, a co-defendant appeared and moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that each of the plaintiffs has a first-filed claim pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Our subsidiary has been granted an indefinite extension of time to respond to the complaint pending the court's decision on whether to hear the action or dismiss it in favor of the earlier filed Louisiana actions.

On May 31 and June 1, 2012, one of our subsidiaries was named, but has not yet been served, in eight actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of 2,930 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 2,930 plaintiffs include 230 plaintiffs who have cases currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On June 20, 2012, a co-defendant appeared and moved to dismiss the claims of the 230 plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On August 22, 2012, the court dismissed the actions determined to be duplicative of the actions cases first filed in such court. Our subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who were not already on file in Louisiana.

11. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

Pineapple Class Action Litigation

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against certain of our subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold^® Extra Sweet pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996 to May 6, 2003. The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On February 18, 2005, our subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004, three alleged individual consumers separately filed putative class action complaints against us and certain of our subsidiaries in the state court of California on behalf of residents of California who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold^® Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. On November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professional Code. On September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification. On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying class certification. On February 29, 2012, the oral argument hearing on the appeal was held. On March 7, 2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of class certification was upheld.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against our subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold^® Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000. Our subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on October 12, 2006. On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. Our subsidiaries filed an opposition on January 22, 2009 to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009. On November 29, 2011, the court denied the motion to certify a class action.

European Union Antitrust Investigation

On June 2, 2005, one of our German subsidiaries was visited by the antitrust authority of the European Union (“EU”) as part of its investigation of certain of our overseas subsidiaries as well as other produce companies for possible violations of the EU’s competition laws. Our subsidiaries cooperated fully with the investigation. On October 17, 2008, the European Commission concluded its investigation without finding any infringement of EU competition rules by, or imposing any fines on, our subsidiaries.

The European Commission did, however, find that Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co KG (“Weichert”), an entity in which one of our subsidiaries formerly held an indirect 80% noncontrolling interest, infringed EU competition rules and imposed upon it a €14.7 million ($18.9 million using exchange rates as of September 28, 2012) fine. The European Commission has asserted that we controlled Weichert during the period by virtue of our subsidiary’s former, indirect noncontrolling interest and has therefore held that we are jointly and severally liable for Weichert’s payment of the fine.

On December 31, 2008, we filed an appeal of this determination on grounds, among others, that Weichert did not violate EU competition rules and that, in any event, we cannot be held jointly and severally liable for Weichert’s acts under applicable German law. On April 14, 2010, Weichert filed a statement of intervention in support of our appeal seeking annulment of the European Commission’s determination. A hearing was held on February 1, 2012 for oral argument on the appeal, which remains pending.

Breach of Contract Litigation

On July 31, 2003, Net Results, Inc., a consulting company, filed a complaint alleging breach of contract against one of our subsidiaries in an action styled Net Results, Inc. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce Company in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (Miami-Dade County, Florida). On April 15, 2008, the plaintiff amended its complaint to include an additional claim of anticipatory repudiation and sought a significant amount of damages. Our subsidiary denied liability and brought a counterclaim against the plaintiff. In November 2009, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $10 million. Our subsidiary’s post-trial motions requested, among other things, that the jury’s verdict be set aside and that judgment be entered in favor of our subsidiary. On March 25, 2010, the trial court denied the motions and entered a final judgment in the amount of $15.7 million (plus attorneys’ fees). On April 15, 2010, our subsidiary appealed the judgment. The oral argument hearing on the appeal of our subsidiary was held on July 13, 2011. On October 19, 2011, the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida ruled in favor of the appeal of our subsidiary and reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on damages.

11. 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.

The undiscounted estimates are between $14.8 million and $28.7 million. The undiscounted estimate on which our accrual is based totals $21.9 million and is discounted using a 5.0% rate. As of September 28, 2012, there is $15.4 million included in other noncurrent liabilities and $1.7 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 $1.0 million in cash per year for the following four years. Certain portions of the EPA’s estimates have been discounted using a 5.0% interest rate.

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.

Additional Information

At this time, management is not able to evaluate the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in any of the above-described matters. Accordingly, management is not able to estimate the range or amount of loss, if any, from any of the above-described matters and no accruals or expenses have been recorded for these matters as of September 28, 2012, except as related to the Kunia Well Site.

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 our results of operations, financial position or our cash flows.

We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in all of the above matters.