COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General

We are a party to many routine contracts in which we provide general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, we have not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities as based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Purchase Obligations

The Company will sometimes enter into noncancelable contracts to purchase capital equipment and certain commodities such as corn, soybean meal, and electricity. At December 28, 2014, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $53.3 million, $4.6 million and $0.8 million payable in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively.

Operating Leases

The Consolidated Statements of Operations include rental expense for operating leases of approximately $15.2 million, $9.6 million and $14.3 million in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The Company’s future minimum lease commitments under noncancelable operating leases are as follows (in thousands):



2015	$	16,893
2016	14,019
2017	11,213
2018	8,197
2019	5,875
Thereafter	3,114
Total	$	59,311

Certain of the Company’s operating leases include rent escalations. The Company includes the rent escalation in its minimum lease payments obligations and recognizes them as a component of rental expense on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease term.

The Company also maintains operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of assets at the end of the term of the lease. The terms of the lease maturities range from one to ten years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is estimated to be approximately $29.7 million; however, the actual amount would be offset by any recoverable amount based on the fair market value of the underlying leased assets. No liability has been recorded related to this contingency as the likelihood of payments under these guarantees is not considered to be probable and the fair value of such guarantees is immaterial. The Company historically has not experienced significant payments under similar residual guarantees.

Financial Instruments

Pursuant to the terms of the Subordinated Loan Agreement, we have agreed to reimburse JBS USA up to $56.5 million for draws upon any letters of credit issued for JBS USA's account that support certain obligations of the Company and its subsidiaries.

The Company’s loan agreements generally obligate the Company to reimburse the applicable lender for incremental increased costs due to a change in law that imposes (i) any reserve or special deposit requirement against assets of, deposits with or credit extended by such lender related to the loan, (ii) any tax, duty or other charge with respect to the loan (except standard income tax) or (iii) capital adequacy requirements. In addition, some of the Company’s loan agreements contain a withholding tax provision that requires the Company to pay additional amounts to the applicable lender or other financing party, generally if withholding taxes are imposed on such lender or other financing party as a result of a change in the applicable tax law. These increased cost and withholding tax provisions continue for the entire term of the applicable transaction, and there is no limitation on the maximum additional amounts the Company could be obligated to pay under such provisions. Any failure to pay amounts due under such provisions generally would trigger an event of default, and, in a secured financing transaction, would entitle the lender to foreclose upon the collateral to realize the amount due.

Litigation

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the Company’s opinion, it has made appropriate and adequate accruals for claims where necessary; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if significantly different than the amounts accrued, the ultimate outcome could have a material effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. For a discussion of the material legal proceedings and claims, see Part II, Item 1. “Legal Proceedings.” Below is a summary of some of these material proceedings and claims. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made and intends to vigorously defend these cases.

On December 1, 2008, Pilgrim’s and six of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (“Bankruptcy Court”). The cases were jointly administered under Case No. 08-45664. The Company emerged from Chapter 11 on December 28, 2009. The Company is the named defendant in several pre-petition lawsuits that, as of December 28, 2014, have not been resolved. Among the claims presently pending are claims brought against certain current and former directors, executive officers and employees of the Company, the Pilgrim’s Pride Administrative Committee and the Pilgrim’s Pride Pension Committee seeking unspecified damages under section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. These claims were brought by individual participants in the Pilgrim’s Pride Retirement Savings Plan, individually and on behalf of a putative class, alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan participants and beneficiaries or otherwise violated ERISA. Although the Company is not a named defendant in these claims, our bylaws require us to indemnify our current and former directors and officers from any liabilities and expenses incurred by them in connection with actions they took in good faith while serving as an officer or director. In these actions the plaintiffs assert claims in excess of $35.0 million. The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the Company cannot be determined at this time.

Other claims presently pending against the Company are claims seeking unspecified damages brought by current or former contract chicken growers who allege, along with other assertions, that the Company breached grower contracts and made false representations to induce the plaintiffs into building chicken farms and entering into chicken growing agreements with the Company. In the case styled Shelia Adams, et al. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, on September 30, 2011, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law stating that the Company violated section 192(e) of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by purportedly attempting to manipulate the price of chicken by idling the El Dorado, Arkansas complex and rejecting the El Dorado growers’ contracts. The trial court awarded damages in the amount of $25.8 million. Afterward, the Company filed post-judgment motions attacking the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, which, on December 28, 2011, were granted in part and resulted in a reduction of the damages award from $25.8 million to $25.6 million. On January 19, 2012, the Company appealed the findings of fact and conclusions of law and decision concerning the post-judgment motions to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Fifth Circuit”). Oral argument occurred December 3, 2012. On August 27, 2013, the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment, and entered a judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing was denied on October 15, 2013. On January 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to accept their case for review. Plaintiff’s petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied on February 24, 2014. The Fifth Circuit's decision and prior favorable trial court rulings regarding the El Dorado growers' claims suggest that the likelihood of any recovery by growers remaining in the case is too remote to maintain the previously-recorded loss accrual. Therefore, the Company reversed the accrual on September 1, 2013.

As for the remaining chicken grower claims, the bench trial relating to the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the Farmerville, Louisiana complex began on July 16, 2012. That bench trial concluded on August 2, 2012, but the Marshall Court postponed its ruling until the appeals process regarding the allegations asserted by the El Dorado growers was exhausted. The bench trial relating to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs from the Nacogdoches, Texas complex began on September 12, 2012, but was also postponed until the appeals process regarding the allegations asserted by the El Dorado growers was exhausted. The remaining bench trial for the plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes was scheduled for October 29, 2012, but that trial date was canceled. Following the denial by the Supreme Court of the United States for a Writ of Certiorari related to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs from the El Dorado, Arkansas complex, the Marshall Court requested briefing on the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the Farmerville, Louisiana complex and scheduled trial proceedings for allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the Nacogdoches complex on August 25, 2014 and allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes on October 27, 2014. Prior to commencing the trial proceedings on the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes, the Marshall Court announced it would enter judgment in PPC’s favor on all remaining federal causes of action, and plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville complexes were given additional time to brief Arkansas state law claims. The court-imposed deadline passed with no briefs filed by plaintiffs. At this time, the Marshall Court has not memorialized its decision in writing.

The IRS filed an amended proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to which the IRS asserted claims that total $74.7 million. We entered into two Stipulations with the IRS on December 12, 2012 that accounted for approximately $29.3 million of the amended proof of claim and should result in no additional tax due.

In connection with the remaining claim for approximately $45.4 million included in the amended proof of claim, we filed a petition in Tax Court on May 26, 2010 in response to a Notice of Deficiency that was issued to the Company as the successor in interest to Gold Kist. The Notice of Deficiency and the Tax Court proceeding relate to a loss that Gold Kist claimed for its tax year ended June 26, 2004. On December 11, 2013, the Tax Court issued its opinion in the Tax Court case holding the loss that Gold Kist claimed for its tax year ended June 26, 2004 is capital in nature. On January 10, 2014, PPC filed both a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Full Tax Court review of both its Motion for Reconsideration and any order issued in response to such motion. On March 10, 2014, the Tax Court denied both the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion for Full Tax Court review. On April 14, 2014, the Company appealed the findings of fact and conclusions of law and decision concerning the post-judgment motions to the Fifth Circuit. The Company filed an opening brief with the Fifth Circuit on June 30, 2014. The IRS filed a response brief with the Fifth Circuit on August 15, 2014. The Company then filed their reply brief with the Fifth Circuit on September 2, 2014. Oral argument before the Fifth Circuit occurred during the week beginning January 5, 2015.

Upon the initial filing of the Gold Kist tax return for the year ended June 26, 2004, the Company assessed the likelihood that the position related to the proceeding would be sustained upon examination and determined that it met the recognition threshold and the full amount of benefit was recognized. We continue to believe the position is more likely than not of being sustained. If adversely determined, the outcome could have a material effect on the Company's operating results and financial position.