COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General The Company is a party to many routine contracts in which it provides general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities because, based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Financial Instruments 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 costs 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 a party to many routine contracts in which it provides general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities because, based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on its 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 A Mexico subsidiary of the Company is currently appealing an unfavorable tax adjustment proposed by Mexican Tax Authorities due to an examination of a specific transaction undertaken by the Mexico subsidiary during tax years 2009 and 2010. Amounts under appeal are $24.3 million and $16.1 million for tax years 2009 and 2010, respectively. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time. 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, No. 1:16-cv-08637 were brought against PPC 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 class 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 PPC, filed motions to dismiss these actions. On November 20, 2017, the court denied all pending motions to dismiss with the exception of certain state-law claims by indirect purchasers that were dismissed or narrowed in scope. Discovery is proceeding and is currently scheduled to be complete by October 14, 2019. Between December 2017 and September 2018, eleven individual direct action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al., v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-08850; Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00245; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al; No. 1:18-cv-00700; US Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al; No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc., et al., v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro Holdings, LLC, v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-4616; The Kroger Co., et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for Central Grocers, Inc. et al v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-05345; and BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-05877) were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by individual direct purchaser entities, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. The Court’s scheduling order currently requires completion of fact discovery on October 14, 2019, class certification briefing and expert reports proceeding from November 12, 2019 to July 14, 2020 and summary judgment to proceed 60 days after the Court rules on motions for class certification. The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will be consolidated. In May 2018, an individual direct action complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-02258), the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. On September 13, 2018, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois where the parties anticipate it will be coordinated with the remaining complaints. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC’s stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC’s failure to disclose that (i) the Company 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) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC’s industry was anticompetitive. On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision and for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion on April 25, 2018. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is currently pending. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC 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 consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the “Grower Litigation”). The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it considered and granted only motions from certain other defendants. challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018. Rulings on the motion are pending. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (“Bankruptcy Court”) enjoined plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against the Company because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to the Company’s 2008-2009 bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against the Company based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On March 13, 2018, Pilgrim’s notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction. To date, plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction order or the confirmation order. On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action styled as DiSalvio v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30207, was brought against all of PPC’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 PPC 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 PPC’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. In January 2018, a stockholder derivative action entitled Raul v. Nogueira de Souza, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company, as nominal defendant, as well as the Company’s directors, its Chief Financial Officer, and majority shareholder, JBS S.A. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) defendants permitted the Company to omit material information from its proxy statements filed in 2014 through 2017 related to the conduct of Wesley Mendonça Batista and Joesley Mendonça Batista, (ii) the individual defendants and JBS S.A. breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent the Company and its officers from engaging in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the Broiler Litigation and (iii) issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation. On May 17, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings pending a final resolution of the Hogan class action litigation. The court-ordered deadline for the defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was originally set for July 30, 2018. This deadline was extended to August 31, 2018, at which time the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion on September 4, 2018. On January 25, 2018, a stockholder derivative action styled as Sciabacucchi v. JBS S.A., et al., was brought against all of PPC’s directors, JBS S.A., JBS USA Holding Lux S.à r.l. (“JBS Holding Lux”) and several members of the Batista family, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties arising out of the Company’s acquisition of Moy Park. On March 15, 2018, the members of the Batista family were dismissed from the action without prejudice by stipulation. On March 20, 2018, nominal defendant PPC filed its answer. On March 20, 2018, the remaining defendants, including PPC’s directors, JBS S.A., and JBS Holding Lux moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 19, 2018, director defendants Bell, Macaluso, and Cooper filed their opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On April 19, 2018, defendants JBS S.A., JBS Holding Lux, and director defendants Lovette, Nogueira de Souza, Tomazoni, Farahat, Molina, and de Vasconcellos, Jr. filed their opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On May 24, 2018, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis filed a derivative complaint, which was virtually identical to the Sciabacucchi complaint. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted a stipulation consolidating the cases and making the first complaint (Sciabacucchi) the operative complaint. On July 3, 2018, the plaintiffs dismissed the Special Committee defendants—Bell, Macaluso and Cooper. On July 9, 2018, the plaintiffs dismissed de Vasconcellos, Jr. and filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss by the entity and non-Special Committee defendants, who filed their reply on August 9, 2018. The motion is set for oral argument on November 15, 2018. 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”), a company organized in Brazil and an indirect controlling shareholder of the Company, including a former senior executive and former board members of the Company, entered into plea bargain agreements (collectively, the “Plea Bargain Agreements”) with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal) (the “MPF”), in connection with certain misconduct by J&F and individuals acting in their individual capacity as J&F executives. The details of such misconduct are set forth in separate annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements, and include admissions of payments to politicians and political parties in Brazil during a ten-year period 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 General Prosecutor of the Republic (Procuradoria-Geral da República or the “PGR”) agreed to grant immunity to the individuals in exchange for such individuals agreeing, among other considerations, to: (1) pay fines totaling 225.0 million Brazilian reais; and (2) cooperate with the MPF, including providing supporting evidence of misconduct identified in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements. On June 5, 2017, J&F, for itself and in its role as the controlling shareholder of the J&F Group Companies, 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 10.3 billion Brazilian reais, 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 J&F Group and the officers of J&F that ratify or adhere to the Leniency Agreement with respect to such conduct. On November 14, 2017 and June 4, 2018, J&F made equal payments of 50.0 million Brazilian reais, which were accepted by the MPF. In August and September 2017, the Fifth Chamber of Coordination and Reviews of the MPF and the 10th Federal Court of the Federal District in Brasília, respectively, ratified the Leniency Agreement. Revocation or non-compliance with certain provisions of the Leniency Agreement by J&F may result in its termination. In September 2017 and February 2018, the PGR requested that the Supreme Court of Brazil (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) terminate (rescisão) the Plea Bargain Agreements of four individuals, two of them are controlling shareholders of J&F and a former directors of J&F on grounds that they failed to disclose certain conduct to the authorities, as required by their Plea Bargain Agreements, including certain alleged support from a prosecutor (the “Prosecutor”) with the preparation of the Plea Bargain Agreements and the Leniency Agreement before they were presented to the MPF. The PGR’s termination requests as to all four individuals are currently pending judgment by the STF. In case STF decides to terminate the Plea Bargain Agreements, the Leniency Agreement would remain valid and in full effect. Although the Leniency Agreement sets forth that it could be terminated if there were a request for the nullification of the Plea Bargain Agreements, which was not the case of the PGR’s request, we cannot assure you that the Leniency Agreement would not be impacted by any other form of termination of the Plea Bargain Agreements, besides the nullification. On February 15, 2018, CVM started an administrative proceeding alleging that certain current and former members of the board of directors of JBS S.A. were not in compliance with their duty of care in respect to monitoring the implementation of JBS S.A.'s risk management (hedge) internal policy. None of JBS S.A. or its subsidiaries (including the Company) is a defendant in this matter. On June 25, 2018, the MPF announced criminal corruption charges against a controlling shareholder and a former executive of J&F with respect to the alleged support provided by the Prosecutor described above. J&F is conducting an internal investigation in accordance with the terms of the Leniency Agreement, and has engaged outside advisors to assist in conducting this investigation, which is ongoing, and with which we are fully cooperating. JBS S.A. and the Company have engaged outside U.S. legal counsel to: (i) conduct an independent investigation in connection with matters disclosed in the Leniency Agreement and the Plea Bargain Agreements; and (ii) communicate with relevant U.S. authorities, including the Department of Justice regarding the factual findings of that investigation. Additionally, JBS S.A. and the Company have taken, and are continuing to take, measures to enhance their compliance programs, including to prevent and detect bribery and corruption. We cannot predict when the J&F and JBS S.A. investigations will be completed or the results of such investigations, including whether any litigation will be brought against us or the outcome or impact of any resulting litigation. We will monitor the results of the investigations. Any proceedings that require us to make substantial payments, affect our reputation or otherwise interfere with our business operations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. Separately, the controlling shareholders of J&F are both under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil (Comissão de Valores Mobiliários or “CVM”) for possible violations of insider trading law involving shares of JBS S.A. and foreign exchange futures contracts prior to the announcement of the Plea Bargain Agreements. They are also facing criminal prosecution by the MPF based on similar allegations. Any further developments in these or other matters involving controlling shareholders, directors, or officers of J&F, or other parties affiliated with us, could subject JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company) to potential fines or penalties, may materially adversely affect the public perception or reputation of JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company) and could have a material adverse effect on JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company).

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General

The Company is a party to many routine contracts in which it provides general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, the Company has not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities because, based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Financial Instruments

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 costs 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.

Tax Claims and Proceedings

A Mexico subsidiary of the Company is currently appealing an unfavorable tax adjustment proposed by Mexican Tax Authorities due to an examination of a specific transaction undertaken by the Mexico subsidiary during tax years 2009 and 2010. Amounts under appeal are $24.3 million and $16.1 million for tax years 2009 and 2010, respectively. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time.

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, No. 1:16-cv-08637 were brought against PPC 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 class 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 PPC, filed motions to dismiss these actions. On November 20, 2017, the court denied all pending motions to dismiss with the exception of certain state-law claims by indirect purchasers that were dismissed or narrowed in scope. Discovery is proceeding and is currently scheduled to be complete by October 14, 2019. Between December 2017 and September 2018, eleven individual direct action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al., v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-08850; Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00245; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al; No. 1:18-cv-00700; US Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al; No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc., et al., v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro Holdings, LLC, v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-4616; The Kroger Co., et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for Central Grocers, Inc. et al v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-05345; and BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-05877) were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by individual direct purchaser entities, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. The Court’s scheduling order currently requires completion of fact discovery on October 14, 2019, class certification briefing and expert reports proceeding from November 12, 2019 to July 14, 2020 and summary judgment to proceed 60 days after the Court rules on motions for class certification. The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will be consolidated. In May 2018, an individual direct action complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-02258), the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. On September 13, 2018, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois where the parties anticipate it will be coordinated with the remaining complaints.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC’s stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC’s failure to disclose that (i) the Company 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) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC’s industry was anticompetitive. On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision and for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion on April 25, 2018. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is currently pending.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC 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 consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the “Grower Litigation”). The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it considered and granted only motions from certain other defendants. challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018. Rulings on the motion are pending. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (“Bankruptcy Court”) enjoined plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against the Company because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to the Company’s 2008-2009 bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against the Company based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On March 13, 2018, Pilgrim’s notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction. To date, plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction order or the confirmation order.

On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action styled as DiSalvio v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30207, was brought against all of PPC’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 PPC 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 PPC’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.

In January 2018, a stockholder derivative action entitled Raul v. Nogueira de Souza, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company, as nominal defendant, as well as the Company’s directors, its Chief Financial Officer, and majority shareholder, JBS S.A. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) defendants permitted the Company to omit material information from its proxy statements filed in 2014 through 2017 related to the conduct of Wesley Mendonça Batista and Joesley Mendonça Batista, (ii) the individual defendants and JBS S.A. breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent the Company and its officers from engaging in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the Broiler Litigation and (iii) issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation. On May 17, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings pending a final resolution of the Hogan class action litigation. The court-ordered deadline for the defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was originally set for July 30, 2018. This deadline was extended to August 31, 2018, at which time the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion on September 4, 2018.

On January 25, 2018, a stockholder derivative action styled as Sciabacucchi v. JBS S.A., et al., was brought against all of PPC’s directors, JBS S.A., JBS USA Holding Lux S.à r.l. (“JBS Holding Lux”) and several members of the Batista family, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties arising out of the Company’s acquisition of Moy Park. On March 15, 2018, the members of the Batista family were dismissed from the action without prejudice by stipulation. On March 20, 2018, nominal defendant PPC filed its answer. On March 20, 2018, the remaining defendants, including PPC’s directors, JBS S.A., and JBS Holding Lux moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 19, 2018, director defendants Bell, Macaluso, and Cooper filed their opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On April 19, 2018, defendants JBS S.A., JBS Holding Lux, and director defendants Lovette, Nogueira de Souza, Tomazoni, Farahat, Molina, and de Vasconcellos, Jr. filed their opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On May 24, 2018, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis filed a derivative complaint, which was virtually identical to the Sciabacucchi complaint. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted a stipulation consolidating the cases and making the first complaint (Sciabacucchi) the operative complaint. On July 3, 2018, the plaintiffs dismissed the Special Committee defendants—Bell, Macaluso and Cooper. On July 9, 2018, the plaintiffs dismissed de Vasconcellos, Jr. and filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss by the entity and non-Special Committee defendants, who filed their reply on August 9, 2018. The motion is set for oral argument on November 15, 2018.

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”), a company organized in Brazil and an indirect controlling shareholder of the Company, including a former senior executive and former board members of the Company, entered into plea bargain agreements (collectively, the “Plea Bargain Agreements”) with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal) (the “MPF”), in connection with certain misconduct by J&F and individuals acting in their individual capacity as J&F executives. The details of such misconduct are set forth in separate annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements, and include admissions of payments to politicians and political parties in Brazil during a ten-year period 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 General Prosecutor of the Republic (Procuradoria-Geral da República or the “PGR”) agreed to grant immunity to the individuals in exchange for such individuals agreeing, among other considerations, to: (1) pay fines totaling 225.0 million Brazilian reais; and (2) cooperate with the MPF, including providing supporting evidence of misconduct identified in the annexes to the Plea Bargain Agreements.

On June 5, 2017, J&F, for itself and in its role as the controlling shareholder of the J&F Group Companies, 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 10.3 billion Brazilian reais, 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 J&F Group and the officers of J&F that ratify or adhere to the Leniency Agreement with respect to such conduct. On November 14, 2017 and June 4, 2018, J&F made equal payments of 50.0 million Brazilian reais, which were accepted by the MPF.

In August and September 2017, the Fifth Chamber of Coordination and Reviews of the MPF and the 10th Federal Court of the Federal District in Brasília, respectively, ratified the Leniency Agreement. Revocation or non-compliance with certain provisions of the Leniency Agreement by J&F may result in its termination.

In September 2017 and February 2018, the PGR requested that the Supreme Court of Brazil (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) terminate (rescisão) the Plea Bargain Agreements of four individuals, two of them are controlling shareholders of J&F and a former directors of J&F on grounds that they failed to disclose certain conduct to the authorities, as required by their Plea Bargain Agreements, including certain alleged support from a prosecutor (the “Prosecutor”) with the preparation of the Plea Bargain Agreements and the Leniency Agreement before they were presented to the MPF. The PGR’s termination requests as to all four individuals are currently pending judgment by the STF. In case STF decides to terminate the Plea Bargain Agreements, the Leniency Agreement would remain valid and in full effect. Although the Leniency Agreement sets forth that it could be terminated if there were a request for the nullification of the Plea Bargain Agreements, which was not the case of the PGR’s request, we cannot assure you that the Leniency Agreement would not be impacted by any other form of termination of the Plea Bargain Agreements, besides the nullification.

On February 15, 2018, CVM started an administrative proceeding alleging that certain current and former members of the board of directors of JBS S.A. were not in compliance with their duty of care in respect to monitoring the implementation of JBS S.A.'s risk management (hedge) internal policy. None of JBS S.A. or its subsidiaries (including the Company) is a defendant in this matter.

On June 25, 2018, the MPF announced criminal corruption charges against a controlling shareholder and a former executive of J&F with respect to the alleged support provided by the Prosecutor described above.

J&F is conducting an internal investigation in accordance with the terms of the Leniency Agreement, and has engaged outside advisors to assist in conducting this investigation, which is ongoing, and with which we are fully cooperating. JBS S.A. and the Company have engaged outside U.S. legal counsel to: (i) conduct an independent investigation in connection with matters disclosed in the Leniency Agreement and the Plea Bargain Agreements; and (ii) communicate with relevant U.S. authorities, including the Department of Justice regarding the factual findings of that investigation. Additionally, JBS S.A. and the Company have taken, and are continuing to take, measures to enhance their compliance programs, including to prevent and detect bribery and corruption. We cannot predict when the J&F and JBS S.A. investigations will be completed or the results of such investigations, including whether any litigation will be brought against us or the outcome or impact of any resulting litigation. We will monitor the results of the investigations. Any proceedings that require us to make substantial payments, affect our reputation or otherwise interfere with our business operations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Separately, the controlling shareholders of J&F are both under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil (Comissão de Valores Mobiliários or “CVM”) for possible violations of insider trading law involving shares of JBS S.A. and foreign exchange futures contracts prior to the announcement of the Plea Bargain Agreements. They are also facing criminal prosecution by the MPF based on similar allegations.

Any further developments in these or other matters involving controlling shareholders, directors, or officers of J&F, or other parties affiliated with us, could subject JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company) to potential fines or penalties, may materially adversely affect the public perception or reputation of JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company) and could have a material adverse effect on JBS S.A. and its subsidiaries (including the Company).