Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 25, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	(10) Legal Proceedings USPB is not currently involved in any litigation. However, because its ownership interest in NBP is USPB’s largest asset and because of the cattle procurement and distribution relationship between USPB and NBP, litigation involving NBP may impact USPB. NBP is a defendant in four class action antitrust lawsuits in the United States District Court, Minnesota District, and seven single plaintiff antitrust lawsuits in United States District Court, Minnesota District, the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court, Connecticut, the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas. In addition, NBP is a defendant in class action antitrust lawsuits in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Superior Court of Quebec, Montreal District. These lawsuits all allege that NBP violated the Sherman Antitrust Act or the Canadian Competition Act and some of the lawsuits allege that NBP violated the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state or provincial laws. The class-action cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation, which was filed originally on April 23, 2019; Peterson et al. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; In re DPP Beef Litigation, which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; Erbert & Gerbert’s, Inc. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on June 18, 2020; Giang Bui v. Cargill, Incorporated, et al. which was filed originally on February 18, 2022; and Sylvie De Bellefeuille v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on March 24, 2022. The single-plaintiff Antitrust Cases are entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and Bi-Lo Holding, LLC v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on August 2, 2021; Cheney Brothers, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on January 31, 2022; Subway v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed on February 22, 2022; Amory Investments LLC v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on March 8, 2022; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on May 12, 2022; Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on June 8, 2022; and Sysco Corporation v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on June 24, 2022. The plaintiffs in these cases seek treble damages and other relief under various laws including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Canadian Competition Act, the Packers & Stockyards Act, and/or the Commodities Exchange Act and various state and provincial laws and attorneys’ fees. NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend them vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the impact on NBP’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In addition to the antitrust litigation, NBP is subject to an investigation by the United States Department of Justice and approximately 30 state attorneys general regarding industry cattle procurement practices. NBP is cooperating with these investigations and is working with the Department of Justice and the relevant states to provide information requested in connection with the investigations. NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to any potential claims that might arise out of these government investigations, although there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these investigations or the impact on NBP’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. NBP is a party to various other lawsuits and claims arising out of the operation of its business. Management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on NBP’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. USPB is not able to assess what impact, if any, the actions described above will have on NBP or USPB.

Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Jun. 25, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(10) Legal Proceedings

USPB is not currently involved in any litigation. However, because its ownership interest in NBP is USPB’s largest asset and because of the cattle procurement and distribution relationship between USPB and NBP, litigation involving NBP may impact USPB.

NBP is a defendant in four class action antitrust lawsuits in the United States District Court, Minnesota District, and seven single plaintiff antitrust lawsuits in United States District Court, Minnesota District, the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court, Connecticut, the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas. In addition, NBP is a defendant in class action antitrust lawsuits in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Superior Court of Quebec, Montreal District. These lawsuits all allege that NBP violated the Sherman Antitrust Act or the Canadian Competition Act and some of the lawsuits allege that NBP violated the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state or provincial laws. The class-action cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation, which was filed originally on April 23, 2019; Peterson et al. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; In re DPP Beef Litigation, which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; Erbert & Gerbert’s, Inc. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on June 18, 2020; Giang Bui v. Cargill, Incorporated, et al. which was filed originally on February 18, 2022; and Sylvie De Bellefeuille v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on March 24, 2022. The single-plaintiff Antitrust Cases are entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and Bi-Lo Holding, LLC v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on August 2, 2021; Cheney Brothers, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on January 31, 2022; Subway v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed on February 22, 2022; Amory Investments LLC v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on March 8, 2022; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on May 12, 2022; Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on June 8, 2022; and Sysco Corporation v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on June 24, 2022. The plaintiffs in these cases seek treble damages and other relief under various laws including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Canadian Competition Act, the Packers & Stockyards Act, and/or the Commodities Exchange Act and various state and provincial laws and attorneys’ fees. NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend them vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the impact on NBP’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In addition to the antitrust litigation, NBP is subject to an investigation by the United States Department of Justice and approximately 30 state attorneys general regarding industry cattle procurement practices. NBP is cooperating with these investigations and is working with the Department of Justice and the relevant states to provide information requested in connection with the investigations. NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to any potential claims that might arise out of these government investigations, although there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these investigations or the impact on NBP’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

NBP is a party to various other lawsuits and claims arising out of the operation of its business. Management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on NBP’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

USPB is not able to assess what impact, if any, the actions described above will have on NBP or USPB.