Commitments and Contingencies

4 Months Ended

Apr. 23, 2022

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Self-insurance reserves and other commitments and contingencies

The company records self-insurance reserves as an other accrued liability on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The reserves include an estimate of expected settlements on pending claims, defense costs and a provision for claims incurred but not reported. These estimates are based on the company’s assessment of potential liability using an analysis of available information with respect to pending claims, historical experience and current cost trends. The amount of the company’s ultimate liability in respect of these matters may differ materially from these estimates.

In the event the company ceases to utilize the independent distributor model or exits a geographic market, the company is contractually required in some situations to purchase the distribution rights from the independent distributor. The company cannot reasonably estimate the potential cost until which time it becomes probable that a transaction will occur. The company expects to continue operating under this model and has concluded that the possibility of a loss is remote.

The company’s facilities are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding the discharge of material into the environment and the protection of the environment in other ways. The company is not a party to any material proceedings arising under these laws and regulations. The company believes that compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations will not materially affect the consolidated financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or the competitive position of the company. The company believes it is currently in substantial compliance with all material environmental laws and regulations affecting the company and its properties.

Litigation

The company and its subsidiaries from time to time are parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including personal injury, commercial, contract, environmental, antitrust, product liability, health and safety and employment matters, which are being handled and defended in the ordinary course of business. While the company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it believes, based upon currently available facts, that it is remote that the ultimate resolution of any such pending matters will have a material adverse effect on its overall financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in the future. However, adverse developments could negatively impact earnings in a particular future fiscal period.

At this time, the company is defending 21 complaints filed by distributors alleging that such distributors were misclassified as independent contractors. Seven of these lawsuits seek class and/or collective action treatment. The remaining fourteen cases either allege individual claims or do not seek class or collective action treatment or, in cases in which class treatment was sought, the court denied class certification. The respective courts have ruled on plaintiffs’ motions for class certification in three of the pending cases, each of which is discussed below. Unless otherwise noted, a class was conditionally certified under the FLSA in each of the cases described below, although the company has the ability to petition the court to decertify that class at a later date:

Case Name	Case No.	Venue	Date Filed	Status
Richard et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of Lafayette, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Baton Rouge, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler, LLC and Flowers Baking Co. of New Orleans, LLC	6:15-cv-02557	U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana	10/21/2015	On April 9, 2021, the court decertified the FLSA collective action and denied plaintiffs' motion to certify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 a state law class of distributors who operated in the state of Louisiana.
Coronado v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC	1:16-cv-00350	U.S. District Court District of New Mexico	4/27/2016	On April 18, 2022, the parties filed a motion with the Court to approve a settlement of this matter for $137,500, inclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, damages and incentives for class members who are active distributors to enter into an amendment to their distributor agreements. The parties’ approval motion is currently pending before the Court.
Martins v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of Bradenton, LLC and Flowers Baking Co. of Villa Rica, LLC	8:16-cv-03145	U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida	11/8/2016

The company and/or its respective subsidiaries contests the allegations and are vigorously defending all of these lawsuits. Given the stage of the complaints and the claims and issues presented, except for lawsuits disclosed herein that have reached a settlement or agreement in principle, the company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from the unresolved lawsuits.

Since the beginning of Fiscal 2021, the company has settled, and the appropriate court has approved, the following collective/class action lawsuits filed by distributors alleging that such distributors were misclassified as independent contractors:

Case Name	Case No.	Venue	Date Filed	Comments
Noll v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC, and CK Sales Co., LLC	1:15-cv-00493	U.S. District Court District of Maine	12/3/2015	On April 26, 2022, the Court approved an agreement to settle this and two companion cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine – Bowen et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al. (No. 1:20-cv-00411); and Aucoin et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al (No. 1:20-cv-00410) – for a payment of $16.5 million, comprised of $9 million in settlement funds and $7.5 million in attorneys’ fees. The settlement also required a phased repurchase of approximately 75 distribution territories in Maine, which, once completed, the company will service its Maine market using company sales employees. The company estimates this cost to be $6.6 million (of which $4.7 million is included in other accrued liabilities and the remainder as a contra account to notes receivable). These amounts were recorded in the selling, distribution, and administrative expenses line item of the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income during Fiscal 2021. The company remains committed to its IDP program.
Caddick et al. v. Tasty Baking Co.	2:19-cv-02106	U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania	5/15/2019	On October 27, 2021, the Court dismissed this lawsuit and approved an agreement to settle this and a companion case (Bertino v. Tasty Baking Co., No. 2:20-cv-05823) for a payment of $3.15 million, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and cost, service awards and consideration for class members who are active distributors to enter into an amendment to their distributor agreements. This settlement charge was recorded as a selling, distribution and administrative expense in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income during the third quarter of Fiscal 2020. The settlement was paid in early November 2021.

See Note 11, Debt and Other Obligations, of Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-Q for additional information on the company’s commitments.