COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 24, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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. 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. Tax Claims and Proceedings In 2009, the IRS asserted claims against the Company totaling $74.7 million. Pilgrim's entered into two Stipulations of Settled Issues agreements with the IRS (the “Stipulations”) on December 12, 2012 that accounted for approximately $29.3 million of the claims and should result in no additional tax due. The Company is currently working with the IRS to finalize the complete tax calculations associated with the Stipulations. Other Claims and Proceedings Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation were brought against Pilgrim's and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints, which were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. The defendants (including the Company) moved to dismiss all complaints on January 27, 2017, which are fully briefed and a ruling by the court is pending. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim’s common stock between February 21, 2014 and October 4, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by its failure to disclose that (i) Pilgrim's colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (ii) the Company's conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) Pilgrim's revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting, as well as stating that Pilgrim's industry was anticompetitive. On April 4, 2017, the court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On April 26, 2017, the court set a briefing schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and the defendants' motion to dismiss. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2016. The defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its Opposition on July 12, 2017. The defendants replied on August 1, 2017. The Court’s decision on the motion is currently pending. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against Pilgrim's and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS. The defendants (including PPC) moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. Briefing on the motions will be complete on November 22, 2017, and a hearing on the motions has been scheduled for January 19, 2018. In addition, on August 29, 2017, PPC filed a Motion to Enforce Confirmation Order Against Growers in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Texas (In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Case No. 08-45664 (DML) seeking an order enjoining the Grower Plaintiffs from pursuing the class action against PPC. A hearing on this motion was held October 12, 2017. The Court’s decision on the motion is currently pending. On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action styled as DiSalvio v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30207, was brought against all of the Company's directors and its Chief Financial Officer, Fabio Sandri, in the District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent the Company and its officers from engaging in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, and issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation. On April 17, 2017, a related stockholder derivative action styled Brima v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30308, was brought against all of the Company's directors and its Chief Financial Officer in the District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado. The Brima complaint contains largely the same allegations as the DiSalvio complaint. On May 4, 2017, the plaintiffs in both the DiSalvio and Brima actions moved to (i) consolidate the two stockholder derivative cases, (ii) stay the consolidated action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan putative securities class action, and (iii) appoint co-lead counsel. The court granted the motion on May 8, 2017, staying the proceedings pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan action. The Company believes it has strong defenses in each of the above litigations and intends to contest them vigorously. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions nor when they will be resolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in any of these litigations, the Company could be liable for damages, which could be material and could adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. J&F Investigation On May 3, 2017, certain officers of J&F Investimentos S.A. (“J&F,” and the companies controlled by J&F, the “J&F Group”) (including two former directors of the Company), a company organized in Brazil and an indirect controlling stockholder of the Company, entered into plea bargain agreements (the “Plea Bargain Agreements”) with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal) (“MPF”) in connection with certain illicit conduct involving improper payments made to Brazilian politicians, government officials and other individuals in Brazil committed by or on behalf of J&F and certain J&F Group companies. The details of such illicit conduct are set forth in separate annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements, and include admissions of improper payments to politicians and political parties in Brazil over the last 10 years in exchange for receiving, or attempting to receive, favorable treatment for certain J&F Group companies in Brazil. Pursuant to the terms of the Plea Bargain Agreements, the MPF agreed to grant immunity to the officers in exchange for such officers agreeing, among other considerations, to: (1) pay fines totaling $225.0 million; (2) cooperate with the MPF, including providing supporting evidence of the illicit conduct identified in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements; and (3) present any previously undisclosed illicit conduct within 120 days following the execution of the Plea Bargain Agreements as long as the description of such conduct had not been omitted in bad faith. In addition, the Plea Bargain Agreements provide that the MPF may terminate any Plea Bargain Agreement and request that the Supreme Court of Brazil (Supremo Tribunal Federal) (“STF”) ratify such termination if any illicit conduct is identified that was not included in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements. On June 5, 2017, J&F, in its role as the controlling shareholder of the J&F Group, entered into a leniency agreement (the “Leniency Agreement”) with the MPF, whereby J&F assumed responsibility for the conduct that was described in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements. In connection with the Leniency Agreement, J&F has agreed to pay a fine of R$10.3 billion, adjusted for inflation, over a 25-year period. In exchange, the MPF agreed not to initiate or propose any criminal, civil or administrative actions against J&F, the companies of the J&F Group or those officers of J&F with respect to such conduct. Pursuant to the terms of the Leniency Agreement, if the Plea Bargain Agreement is annulled by the STF, then the Leniency Agreement may also be terminated by the Fifth Chamber of Coordination and Reviews of the MPF or, solely with respect to the criminal related provisions of the Leniency Agreement, by the 10th Federal Court of the Federal District in Brasília, the authorities responsible for the ratification of the Leniency Agreement. On August 24, 2017, the Fifth Chamber ratified the Leniency Agreement. On September 8, 2017, the 10th Federal Court ratified the Leniency Agreement. In compliance with the terms of the Leniency Agreement, J&F is conducting an internal investigation involving improper payments made in Brazil by or on behalf of J&F, certain companies of the J&F Group and certain officers of J&F (including two former directors of the Company). J&F has engaged outside advisors to assist it in conducting the investigation, including an assessment as to whether any of the misconduct disclosed to Brazilian authorities had any connection to the Company or Moy Park, or resulted in a violation of U.S. law. The internal investigation is ongoing and the Company is fully cooperating with J&F in connection with the investigation. We cannot predict when the investigation will be completed or the results of the investigation, including the outcome or impact of any government investigations or any resulting litigation. On September 8, 2017, at the request of the MPF, the STF issued an order temporarily revoking the immunity from prosecution previously granted to Joesley Mendonça Batista and another executive of J&F in connection with the Plea Bargain Agreements. The MPF requested the revocation of their immunity following public disclosure of certain voice recordings involving them in which they discussed certain alleged illicit activities the MPF claims were not covered by the annexes to their respective Plea Bargain Agreements. On September 10, 2017, Joesley Mendonça Batista voluntarily turned himself into police in Brazil. On September 11, 2017, the 10th Federal Court suspended its ratification of the criminal provisions of the Leniency Agreement as a result of the STF’s temporary revocation of Joesley Mendonça Batista immunity under his Plea Bargain Agreement. On October 11, 2017, Judge Vallisney de Souza of the 10th Federal Court revalidated the criminal provisions of the Leniency Agreement. We cannot predict whether the Plea Bargain Agreements will be upheld or terminated by the STF, and, if terminated, whether the Leniency Agreement will be also terminated by either the Fifth Chamber and/or the 10th Federal Court, and to what extent. If the Leniency Agreement is terminated, in whole or in part, as a result of any Plea Bargain Agreement being terminated, this may materially adversely affect the public perception or reputation of the J&F Group, including the Company, and could have a material adverse effect on the J&F Group’s business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, the termination of the Leniency Agreement may cause the termination of certain stabilization agreements entered into by JBS S.A. and certain of its subsidiaries, which would permit the lenders of the debt that is the subject to the terms of the stabilization agreements to accelerate their debt, which could have a material adverse effect on JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company).

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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.

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.

Tax Claims and Proceedings

In 2009, the IRS asserted claims against the Company totaling $74.7 million. Pilgrim's entered into two Stipulations of Settled Issues agreements with the IRS (the “Stipulations”) on December 12, 2012 that accounted for approximately $29.3 million of the claims and should result in no additional tax due. The Company is currently working with the IRS to finalize the complete tax calculations associated with the Stipulations.

Other Claims and Proceedings

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation were brought against Pilgrim's and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints, which were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. The defendants (including the Company) moved to dismiss all complaints on January 27, 2017, which are fully briefed and a ruling by the court is pending.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim’s common stock between February 21, 2014 and October 4, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by its failure to disclose that (i) Pilgrim's colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (ii) the Company's conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) Pilgrim's revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting, as well as stating that Pilgrim's industry was anticompetitive. On April 4, 2017, the court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On April 26, 2017, the court set a briefing schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and the defendants' motion to dismiss. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2016. The defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its Opposition on July 12, 2017. The defendants replied on August 1, 2017. The Court’s decision on the motion is currently pending.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against Pilgrim's and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS. The defendants (including PPC) moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. Briefing on the motions will be complete on November 22, 2017, and a hearing on the motions has been scheduled for January 19, 2018. In addition, on August 29, 2017, PPC filed a Motion to Enforce Confirmation Order Against Growers in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Texas (In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Case No. 08-45664 (DML) seeking an order enjoining the Grower Plaintiffs from pursuing the class action against PPC. A hearing on this motion was held October 12, 2017. The Court’s decision on the motion is currently pending.

On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action styled as DiSalvio v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30207, was brought against all of the Company's directors and its Chief Financial Officer, Fabio Sandri, in the District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent the Company and its officers from engaging in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, and issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation. On April 17, 2017, a related stockholder derivative action styled Brima v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30308, was brought against all of the Company's directors and its Chief Financial Officer in the District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado. The Brima complaint contains largely the same allegations as the DiSalvio complaint. On May 4, 2017, the plaintiffs in both the DiSalvio and Brima actions moved to (i) consolidate the two stockholder derivative cases, (ii) stay the consolidated action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan putative securities class action, and (iii) appoint co-lead counsel. The court granted the motion on May 8, 2017, staying the proceedings pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan action.

The Company believes it has strong defenses in each of the above litigations and intends to contest them vigorously. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions nor when they will be resolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in any of these litigations, the Company could be liable for damages, which could be material and could adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations.

J&F Investigation

On May 3, 2017, certain officers of J&F Investimentos S.A. (“J&F,” and the companies controlled by J&F, the “J&F Group”) (including two former directors of the Company), a company organized in Brazil and an indirect controlling stockholder of the Company, entered into plea bargain agreements (the “Plea Bargain Agreements”) with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal) (“MPF”) in connection with certain illicit conduct involving improper payments made to Brazilian politicians, government officials and other individuals in Brazil committed by or on behalf of J&F and certain J&F Group companies. The details of such illicit conduct are set forth in separate annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements, and include admissions of improper payments to politicians and political parties in Brazil over the last 10 years in exchange for receiving, or attempting to receive, favorable treatment for certain J&F Group companies in Brazil.

Pursuant to the terms of the Plea Bargain Agreements, the MPF agreed to grant immunity to the officers in exchange for such officers agreeing, among other considerations, to: (1) pay fines totaling $225.0 million; (2) cooperate with the MPF, including providing supporting evidence of the illicit conduct identified in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements; and (3) present any previously undisclosed illicit conduct within 120 days following the execution of the Plea Bargain Agreements as long as the description of such conduct had not been omitted in bad faith. In addition, the Plea Bargain Agreements provide that the MPF may terminate any Plea Bargain Agreement and request that the Supreme Court of Brazil (Supremo Tribunal Federal) (“STF”) ratify such termination if any illicit conduct is identified that was not included in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements.

On June 5, 2017, J&F, in its role as the controlling shareholder of the J&F Group, entered into a leniency agreement (the “Leniency Agreement”) with the MPF, whereby J&F assumed responsibility for the conduct that was described in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements. In connection with the Leniency Agreement, J&F has agreed to pay a fine of R$10.3 billion, adjusted for inflation, over a 25-year period. In exchange, the MPF agreed not to initiate or propose any criminal, civil or administrative actions against J&F, the companies of the J&F Group or those officers of J&F with respect to such conduct. Pursuant to the terms of the Leniency Agreement, if the Plea Bargain Agreement is annulled by the STF, then the Leniency Agreement may also be terminated by the Fifth Chamber of Coordination and Reviews of the MPF or, solely with respect to the criminal related provisions of the Leniency Agreement, by the 10th Federal Court of the Federal District in Brasília, the authorities responsible for the ratification of the Leniency Agreement.

On August 24, 2017, the Fifth Chamber ratified the Leniency Agreement. On September 8, 2017, the 10th Federal Court ratified the Leniency Agreement. In compliance with the terms of the Leniency Agreement, J&F is conducting an internal investigation involving improper payments made in Brazil by or on behalf of J&F, certain companies of the J&F Group and certain officers of J&F (including two former directors of the Company). J&F has engaged outside advisors to assist it in conducting the investigation, including an assessment as to whether any of the misconduct disclosed to Brazilian authorities had any connection to the Company or Moy Park, or resulted in a violation of U.S. law. The internal investigation is ongoing and the Company is fully cooperating with J&F in connection with the investigation. We cannot predict when the investigation will be completed or the results of the investigation, including the outcome or impact of any government investigations or any resulting litigation.

On September 8, 2017, at the request of the MPF, the STF issued an order temporarily revoking the immunity from prosecution previously granted to Joesley Mendonça Batista and another executive of J&F in connection with the Plea Bargain Agreements. The MPF requested the revocation of their immunity following public disclosure of certain voice recordings involving them in which they discussed certain alleged illicit activities the MPF claims were not covered by the annexes to their respective Plea Bargain Agreements. On September 10, 2017, Joesley Mendonça Batista voluntarily turned himself into police in Brazil. On September 11, 2017, the 10th Federal Court suspended its ratification of the criminal provisions of the Leniency Agreement as a result of the STF’s temporary revocation of Joesley Mendonça Batista immunity under his Plea Bargain Agreement. On October 11, 2017, Judge Vallisney de Souza of the 10th Federal Court revalidated the criminal provisions of the Leniency Agreement.

We cannot predict whether the Plea Bargain Agreements will be upheld or terminated by the STF, and, if terminated, whether the Leniency Agreement will be also terminated by either the Fifth Chamber and/or the 10th Federal Court, and to what extent. If the Leniency Agreement is terminated, in whole or in part, as a result of any Plea Bargain Agreement being terminated, this may materially adversely affect the public perception or reputation of the J&F Group, including the Company, and could have a material adverse effect on the J&F Group’s business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, the termination of the Leniency Agreement may cause the termination of certain stabilization agreements entered into by JBS S.A. and certain of its subsidiaries, which would permit the lenders of the debt that is the subject to the terms of the stabilization agreements to accelerate their debt, which could have a material adverse effect on JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company).