Contingencies	12 Months Ended
May 31, 2014
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	14. Contingencies Financial Instruments The Company maintains standby letters of credit (“LOC”) with a bank totaling $3.3 million at May 31, 2014. These LOCs are collateralized with cash. The cash that collateralizes the LOCs is included in the line item “Other assets” in the consolidated balance sheets. The outstanding LOCs are for the benefit of certain insurance companies. None of the LOCs are recorded as a liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Litigation The Company is a defendant in certain legal actions, and intends to vigorously defend its position in these actions. The Company assesses the likelihood of material adverse judgments or outcomes to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. If the assessment of a contingency indicates it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, the estimated liability is accrued in the Company’s financial statements. If the assessment indicates a potentially material loss contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, would be disclosed. State of Oklahoma Watershed Pollution Litigation On June 18, 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed suit, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. as well as Tyson Foods, Inc. and affiliates, Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc. and its affiliate, George’s, Inc. and its affiliate, Peterson Farms, Inc. and Simmons Foods, Inc. Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. was dismissed from the case in September 2009. The State of Oklahoma claims that through the disposal of chicken litter the defendants have polluted the Illinois River Watershed. This watershed provides water to eastern Oklahoma. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages, but the claim for monetary damages has been dismissed by the court. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. discontinued operations in the watershed. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. will be materially affected by the request for injunctive relief unless the court orders substantial affirmative remediation. Since the litigation began, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. purchased 100% of the membership interests of Benton County Foods, LLC, which is an ongoing commercial shell egg operation within the Illinois River Watershed. Benton County Foods, LLC is not a defendant in the litigation. The trial in the case began in September 2009 and concluded in February 2010. The case was tried to the court without a jury and the court has not yet issued its ruling. Management believes the risk of material loss related to this matter to be remote. Egg Antitrust Litigation Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants - that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties – and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 28, 2014, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Company’s previously-reported settlement of these cases, conditionally certifying the class for settlement purposes and approving the Notice Plan submitted by the parties. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on the settlement on September 18, 2014. All proceedings against the Company in the direct purchaser putative class action are stayed pending the Court’s final approval of the Company’s settlement. The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action. The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of action. On February 10-12, 2015, the Court will hold a hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Non-Class Cases. Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs’ claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004. The parties have completed nearly all fact discovery related to these cases. The deadline for parties to file dispositive motions is July 2, 2015. On May 6, 2014, the Company agreed in principle to settle all claims brought by the four plaintiffs in one of the non-class cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.; Roundy’s Supermarkets, Inc.; C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.; and H.J. Heinz Company, L.P. v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00510-GP. The parties are still in the process of finalizing their formal settlement papers. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The Company is settling this case for an amount and on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations. On March 3, 2014, all claims against the Company in the Kansas state court case styled as Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., v. United Egg Producers, et al., No. 10-CV-2171, were dismissed with prejudice. The Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement settling this case for an amount and on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations. Allegations in Each Case. In all of the cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running “through the present,” the Court’s ruling on the statute of limitations, described above, alters the period for which damages are available. In the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to September 24, 2004. In the indirect purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted, with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and claim-by-claim basis. The direct purchaser putative class actions allege two separate sub-classes – one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and the District of Columbia. Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal settlement papers). In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company’s remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements. Florida Civil Investigative Demand On November 4, 2008, the Company received an antitrust civil investigative demand from the Attorney General of the State of Florida. The demand seeks production of documents and responses to interrogatories relating to the production and sale of eggs and egg products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation and entered into a tolling agreement with the State of Florida to extend any applicable statute of limitations for one year from the date of the agreement. No allegations of wrongdoing have been made against the Company in this matter. Environmental Information Request In July 2011, the Company received an information request (“Request”) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act (“Act”). The Request stated that the information was sought by the EPA to investigate compliance with the Act and requested information pertaining to facilities involved in animal feeding operations, which are owned or operated by the Company or its affiliates. On October 19, 2011, the Company timely responded to the Request by providing information on each of the subject facilities. The EPA subsequently sent a notice of noncompliance (“Notice”) dated March 29, 2012 to the Company which involved allegations of potential non-compliance with the Request and/or the Act. The Notice related to the Company’s Edwards, Mississippi facility only. The Company timely responded to the Notice on May 2, 2012. The EPA and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”) provided certain preliminary findings to the Company alleging potential violations of the Act and/or the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law concerning unpermitted discharges of pollutants to water of the United States and/or Mississippi and violations of certain conditions established under the Company’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Edwards, Mississippi facility. The Company has reached an agreement in principle with the EPA and the MDEQ to settle all claims related to the Edwards, Mississippi facility only. The terms and conditions of the proposed settlement related only to the Edwards, Mississippi facility and are not expected to have a material impact to the Company’s results of operations. Miscellaneous In addition to the above, 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 should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position. At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters set forth above.

14. Contingencies

Financial Instruments

The Company maintains standby letters of credit (“LOC”) with a bank totaling $3.3 million at May 31, 2014. These LOCs are collateralized with cash. The cash that collateralizes the LOCs is included in the line item “Other assets” in the consolidated balance sheets. The outstanding LOCs are for the benefit of certain insurance companies. None of the LOCs are recorded as a liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Litigation

The Company is a defendant in certain legal actions, and intends to vigorously defend its position in these actions. The Company assesses the likelihood of material adverse judgments or outcomes to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. If the assessment of a contingency indicates it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, the estimated liability is accrued in the Company’s financial statements. If the assessment indicates a potentially material loss contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, would be disclosed.

State of Oklahoma Watershed Pollution Litigation

On June 18, 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed suit, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. as well as Tyson Foods, Inc. and affiliates, Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc. and its affiliate, George’s, Inc. and its affiliate, Peterson Farms, Inc. and Simmons Foods, Inc. Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. was dismissed from the case in September 2009. The State of Oklahoma claims that through the disposal of chicken litter the defendants have polluted the Illinois River Watershed. This watershed provides water to eastern Oklahoma. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages, but the claim for monetary damages has been dismissed by the court. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. discontinued operations in the watershed. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. will be materially affected by the request for injunctive relief unless the court orders substantial affirmative remediation. Since the litigation began, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. purchased 100% of the membership interests of Benton County Foods, LLC, which is an ongoing commercial shell egg operation within the Illinois River Watershed. Benton County Foods, LLC is not a defendant in the litigation.

The trial in the case began in September 2009 and concluded in February 2010. The case was tried to the court without a jury and the court has not yet issued its ruling. Management believes the risk of material loss related to this matter to be remote.

Egg Antitrust Litigation

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants - that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties – and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group.

The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 28, 2014, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Company’s previously-reported settlement of these cases, conditionally certifying the class for settlement purposes and approving the Notice Plan submitted by the parties. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on the settlement on September 18, 2014. All proceedings against the Company in the direct purchaser putative class action are stayed pending the Court’s final approval of the Company’s settlement.

The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action. The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of action. On February 10-12, 2015, the Court will hold a hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

The Non-Class Cases. Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs’ claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004. The parties have completed nearly all fact discovery related to these cases. The deadline for parties to file dispositive motions is July 2, 2015.

On May 6, 2014, the Company agreed in principle to settle all claims brought by the four plaintiffs in one of the non-class cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.; Roundy’s Supermarkets, Inc.; C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.; and H.J. Heinz Company, L.P. v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00510-GP. The parties are still in the process of finalizing their formal settlement papers. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The Company is settling this case for an amount and on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations.

On March 3, 2014, all claims against the Company in the Kansas state court case styled as Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., v. United Egg Producers, et al., No. 10-CV-2171, were dismissed with prejudice. The Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement settling this case for an amount and on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations.

Allegations in Each Case. In all of the cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.

Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running “through the present,” the Court’s ruling on the statute of limitations, described above, alters the period for which damages are available. In the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to September 24, 2004. In the indirect purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted, with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and claim-by-claim basis. The direct purchaser putative class actions allege two separate sub-classes – one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and the District of Columbia.

Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal settlement papers). In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company’s remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases).

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements.

Florida Civil Investigative Demand

On November 4, 2008, the Company received an antitrust civil investigative demand from the Attorney General of the State of Florida. The demand seeks production of documents and responses to interrogatories relating to the production and sale of eggs and egg products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation and entered into a tolling agreement with the State of Florida to extend any applicable statute of limitations for one year from the date of the agreement. No allegations of wrongdoing have been made against the Company in this matter.

Environmental Information Request

In July 2011, the Company received an information request (“Request”) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act (“Act”). The Request stated that the information was sought by the EPA to investigate compliance with the Act and requested information pertaining to facilities involved in animal feeding operations, which are owned or operated by the Company or its affiliates. On October 19, 2011, the Company timely responded to the Request by providing information on each of the subject facilities. The EPA subsequently sent a notice of noncompliance (“Notice”) dated March 29, 2012 to the Company which involved allegations of potential non-compliance with the Request and/or the Act. The Notice related to the Company’s Edwards, Mississippi facility only. The Company timely responded to the Notice on May 2, 2012. The EPA and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”) provided certain preliminary findings to the Company alleging potential violations of the Act and/or the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law concerning unpermitted discharges of pollutants to water of the United States and/or Mississippi and violations of certain conditions established under the Company’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Edwards, Mississippi facility. The Company has reached an agreement in principle with the EPA and the MDEQ to settle all claims related to the Edwards, Mississippi facility only. The terms and conditions of the proposed settlement related only to the Edwards, Mississippi facility and are not expected to have a material impact to the Company’s results of operations.

Miscellaneous

In addition to the above, 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 should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position.

At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters set forth above.