COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contractual Obligations In order to mitigate the risks of volatility in commodity markets to which we are exposed, we entered into forward purchase agreements with certain suppliers based on market prices, forward price projections and expected usage levels. Purchase commitments for certain ingredients, packaging materials and energy totaled $211.1 million as of September 30, 2017, compared to $157.2 million as of December 31, 2016. The increase in purchase commitments was primarily due to timing of raw material purchase contracts for the upcoming year. In addition to these commitments, we have contracts for certain ingredients and packaging materials where we have secured a fixed price but do not have a minimum purchase quantity. We generally contract from approximately three to twelve months in advance for certain major ingredients and packaging. These contracts can extend out from one to three years. We also have a licensing contract which totaled $11.3 million as of September 30, 2017, and runs through 2020. We have contracts to receive services from our syndicated market data providers through 2023. Our commitment for these services ranges from $4.6 million to $5.3 million each year throughout the life of the contracts. We also maintain standby letters of credit in connection with our self-insurance reserves for casualty claims. The total amount of these letters of credit was $12.4 million and $12.6 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Guarantees We currently provide a partial guarantee for loans made to IBOs by certain third-party financial institutions for the purchase of route businesses. The outstanding aggregate balance on these loans was $171.4 million and $154.1 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The annual maximum amount of future payments we could be required to make under the guarantee equates to 25.0% of the outstanding loan balance on the first day of each calendar year plus 25.0% of the amount of any new loans issued during such calendar year. These loans are collateralized by the route businesses for which the loans are made. Accordingly, we have the ability to recover substantially all of the outstanding loan value upon default, and our liability associated with this guarantee is not material. Legal Matters IBO Litigation Scheurer v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC On December 8, 2016, plaintiff served a putative class action on behalf of all similarly situated IBOs in New Jersey against our distribution subsidiary, SLD. Plaintiff is a former IBO whose distribution agreement was terminated pursuant to the re-engineering and buyback of routes in New Jersey in 2011, resulting from the merger of Snyder’s of Hanover, Inc. and Lance, Inc. The lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in New Jersey for alleged violations of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act relative to various terminations of the distributor agreement. We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have been asserted against us. At this time, no demand has been made, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit. California Labor Code Matters Sparks v. Diamond Foods, Inc. Former employee, Patricia Sparks, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods on November 25, 2015 in San Francisco Superior Court alleging Diamond Foods’ violation of the California Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start date of the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claim for penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act based on the same alleged underlying violations. Diamond Foods timely answered the First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016. The parties attended the initial case management conference on May 2, 2016 and a further case management conference occurred on August 1, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the parties to this litigation reached a tentative settlement pursuant to which we have agreed to pay $0.7 million on a class wide basis. We signed a memorandum of understanding reflecting this preliminary settlement amount. The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the court and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 24, 2017. On July 5, 2017, the parties appeared before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. At the hearing, the judge requested supplemental briefing from the Plaintiff, which Plaintiff filed on July 14, 2017. On July 19, 2017, the court entered an order granting Final Approval of the Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs. The judge granted final approval of the maximum settlement amount of $0.7 million, which was paid on October 17, 2017 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Bensman v. Diamond Foods, LLC et. al. Diamond Foods, LLC employee Della Bensman filed a putative class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, LLC and Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. on April 4, 2017 in San Joaquin Superior Court alleging the companies’ violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff alleges the companies' failure to provide third rest breaks when Plaintiff or other employees worked a shift over ten hours and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements for employees in periods in which they worked more than ten hours and did not receive a third rest break. Plaintiff’s Complaint also includes a claim for penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act and an unfair business practices claim pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code based on the same underlying violations. On June 16, 2017, we filed a Demurrer seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim regarding our failure to provide accurate wage statements. The court scheduled a hearing on the Demurrer for November 15, 2017. At this time, no demand has been made and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this lawsuit. Food Labeling Litigation Evaporated Cane Juice Litigation A putative class action suit was filed against Late July Snacks, LLC ("Late July") on September 18, 2013, and is pending in the District Court for the Northern District of California. The action accuses Late July of violating federal and state law by using the term "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") in the ingredients list on its products' labels. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges ECJ is not the common and usual name for the ingredient at issue and is misleading. The complaint attempts to state claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment. Late July filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 27, 2013, based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, lack of standing, and failure to state a claim. On May 22, 2014, the Court stayed the action, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, due to the FDA's ongoing consideration of the issue of using the term ECJ on food labels. On May 26, 2016, the FDA issued its guidance for industry on the topic. As a result, the stay was lifted on July 22, 2016. On August 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, relies on the FDA's recently issued guidance. Late July filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and a hearing on that motion was held on February 16, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Late July’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed the class allegations and the claim for injunctive relief, but allowed the two individual plaintiffs’ claims for damages to proceed. The Order did allow Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, and on June 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. In response, Late July filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 30, 2017. On October 16, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Late July’s Motion to Dismiss, once again dismissing Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief. We are presently awaiting a hearing date on that motion. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit. Other We are currently subject to various other legal proceedings and environmental matters arising in the normal course of business which are not expected to have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements. We record a liability when we believe that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is possible and a range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we will disclose the range of the possible loss. Significant judgment is required to determine both likelihood of there being, and the estimated amount of, a loss related to such matters. We cannot currently estimate our potential liability, damages or range of potential loss in connection with our other outstanding legal proceedings beyond amounts accrued, if any.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contractual Obligations

In order to mitigate the risks of volatility in commodity markets to which we are exposed, we entered into forward purchase agreements with certain suppliers based on market prices, forward price projections and expected usage levels. Purchase commitments for certain ingredients, packaging materials and energy totaled $211.1 million as of September 30, 2017, compared to $157.2 million as of December 31, 2016. The increase in purchase commitments was primarily due to timing of raw material purchase contracts for the upcoming year. In addition to these commitments, we have contracts for certain ingredients and packaging materials where we have secured a fixed price but do not have a minimum purchase quantity. We generally contract from approximately three to twelve months in advance for certain major ingredients and packaging. These contracts can extend out from one to three years. We also have a licensing contract which totaled $11.3 million as of September 30, 2017, and runs through 2020.

We have contracts to receive services from our syndicated market data providers through 2023. Our commitment for these services ranges from $4.6 million to $5.3 million each year throughout the life of the contracts.

We also maintain standby letters of credit in connection with our self-insurance reserves for casualty claims. The total amount of these letters of credit was $12.4 million and $12.6 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Guarantees

We currently provide a partial guarantee for loans made to IBOs by certain third-party financial institutions for the purchase of route businesses. The outstanding aggregate balance on these loans was $171.4 million and $154.1 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The annual maximum amount of future payments we could be required to make under the guarantee equates to 25.0% of the outstanding loan balance on the first day of each calendar year plus 25.0% of the amount of any new loans issued during such calendar year. These loans are collateralized by the route businesses for which the loans are made. Accordingly, we have the ability to recover substantially all of the outstanding loan value upon default, and our liability associated with this guarantee is not material.

Legal Matters

IBO Litigation

Scheurer v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC

On December 8, 2016, plaintiff served a putative class action on behalf of all similarly situated IBOs in New Jersey against our distribution subsidiary, SLD. Plaintiff is a former IBO whose distribution agreement was terminated pursuant to the re-engineering and buyback of routes in New Jersey in 2011, resulting from the merger of Snyder’s of Hanover, Inc. and Lance, Inc. The lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in New Jersey for alleged violations of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act relative to various terminations of the distributor agreement. We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have been asserted against us. At this time, no demand has been made, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit.

California Labor Code Matters

Sparks v. Diamond Foods, Inc.

Former employee, Patricia Sparks, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods on November 25, 2015 in San Francisco Superior Court alleging Diamond Foods’ violation of the California Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start date of the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claim for penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act based on the same alleged underlying violations. Diamond Foods timely answered the First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016. The parties attended the initial case management conference on May 2, 2016 and a further case management conference occurred on August 1, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the parties to this litigation reached a tentative settlement pursuant to which we have agreed to pay $0.7 million on a class wide basis. We signed a memorandum of understanding reflecting this preliminary settlement amount. The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the court and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 24, 2017. On July 5, 2017, the parties appeared before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. At the hearing, the judge requested supplemental briefing from the Plaintiff, which Plaintiff filed on July 14, 2017. On July 19, 2017, the court entered an order granting Final Approval of the Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs. The judge granted final approval of the maximum settlement amount of $0.7 million, which was paid on October 17, 2017 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

Bensman v. Diamond Foods, LLC et. al.

Diamond Foods, LLC employee Della Bensman filed a putative class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, LLC and Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. on April 4, 2017 in San Joaquin Superior Court alleging the companies’ violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff alleges the companies' failure to provide third rest breaks when Plaintiff or other employees worked a shift over ten hours and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements for employees in periods in which they worked more than ten hours and did not receive a third rest break. Plaintiff’s Complaint also includes a claim for penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act and an unfair business practices claim pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code based on the same underlying violations. On June 16, 2017, we filed a Demurrer seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim regarding our failure to provide accurate wage statements. The court scheduled a hearing on the Demurrer for November 15, 2017. At this time, no demand has been made and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this lawsuit.

Food Labeling Litigation

Evaporated Cane Juice Litigation

A putative class action suit was filed against Late July Snacks, LLC ("Late July") on September 18, 2013, and is pending in the District Court for the Northern District of California. The action accuses Late July of violating federal and state law by using the term "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") in the ingredients list on its products' labels. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges ECJ is not the common and usual name for the ingredient at issue and is misleading. The complaint attempts to state claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment. Late July filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 27, 2013, based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, lack of standing, and failure to state a claim.

On May 22, 2014, the Court stayed the action, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, due to the FDA's ongoing consideration of the issue of using the term ECJ on food labels. On May 26, 2016, the FDA issued its guidance for industry on the topic. As a result, the stay was lifted on July 22, 2016. On August 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, relies on the FDA's recently issued guidance. Late July filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and a hearing on that motion was held on February 16, 2017.

On May 5, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Late July’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed the class allegations and the claim for injunctive relief, but allowed the two individual plaintiffs’ claims for damages to proceed. The Order did allow Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, and on June 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. In response, Late July filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 30, 2017. On October 16, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Late July’s Motion to Dismiss, once again dismissing Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief. We are presently awaiting a hearing date on that motion. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit.

Other

We are currently subject to various other legal proceedings and environmental matters arising in the normal course of business which are not expected to have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements. We record a liability when we believe that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is possible and a range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we will disclose the range of the possible loss. Significant judgment is required to determine both likelihood of there being, and the estimated amount of, a loss related to such matters. We cannot currently estimate our potential liability, damages or range of potential loss in connection with our other outstanding legal proceedings beyond amounts accrued, if any.