XML 37 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.2
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2020
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 (1) any reserve or special deposit requirement against assets of, deposits with or credit extended by such lender related to the loan, (2) any tax, duty or other charge with respect to the loan (except standard income tax) or (3) 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 material legal proceedings and claims, see Part II, Item 1. “Legal Proceedings.” The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made in the pending litigations described below and intends to vigorously defend these cases.
Tax Claims and Proceedings
During 2014 and 2015 the Mexican Tax Authorities opened a review of Avícola Pilgrim’s Pride de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“APPM”) in regards to tax years 2009 and 2010, respectively. In both instances, the Mexican Tax Authorities claim that controlled company status did not exist for certain subsidiaries because APPM did not own 50% of the shares in voting rights of Incubadora Hidalgo, S. de R.L de C.V. and Commercializadora de Carnes de México S. de R.L de C.V. (both in 2009) and Pilgrim’s Pride, S. de R. L. de C.V. (in 2010). As a result, APPM should have considered dividends paid out of these subsidiaries partially taxable since a portion of the dividend amount was not paid from the net tax profit account (CUFIN). APPM is currently appealing. 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.
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation
Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Illinois Court”) 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 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. Between December 8, 2017 and October 14, 2020, 44 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints, with four complaints including additional allegations of fixing prices and rigging bids on small birds sold to quick service restaurants. On August 26, 2020, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, one of the plaintiffs, filed a notice dismissing its case. On September 22, 2020, the Illinois Court required direct action plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by October 23, 2020 and stayed bid-rigging claims until the resolution of plaintiffs’ supply reduction and other conspiracy claims are resolved. The Illinois 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.
On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) filed a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months. Following a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Illinois Court granted the government’s motion to intervene, ordering a limited stay, which was subsequently reset, until March 31, 2020. The stay was lifted on March 31, 2020. See “DOJ Antitrust Matter” below for a discussion of developments related to the DOJ.
On August 28, 2020, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling order through trial, which contemplates class certification briefing and related expert reports proceeding from October 30, 2020 to May 6, 2021, the close of all merits fact discovery on June 11, 2021, and summary judgment briefing and related expert reports proceeding from July 2, 2021 to February 22, 2022. The Illinois Court has set a trial date of October 17, 2022.
On September 1, 2020, the Attorney General of New Mexico filed a complaint raising similar allegations as the class action and direct action complaints before the Illinois Court. The case is styled as State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector Balderas v. Koch Foods, et al., No. D-101-CV-2020-0891 and is pending before the First Judicial District Court in the County of Santa Fe. PPC has not been served with the complaint.
Other Claims and Proceedings
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 (the “Colorado Court”) 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 (1) PPC 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, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (3) PPC’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC’s industry was anticompetitive and seeks compensatory damages. On April 4, 2017, the Colorado 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 Colorado 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 Colorado 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. On November 19, 2018, the Colorado Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On June 8, 2020, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against the same defendants, based in part on the Indictment (defined below). On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 31, 2020, and defendants filed their reply on September 20, 2020. The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss is 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (the “Oklahoma Court”) 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 for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Oklahoma Court granted only certain other defendants’ motions challenging jurisdiction. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (the “Bankruptcy Court”) enjoined the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to PPC’s bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2009. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On January 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and lifted the stay on discovery. On February 21, 2020, the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in light of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction. On April 13, 2020, the Oklahoma Court entered a case management order setting a September 24, 2021 deadline for the close of fact discovery. In September 2020, similar class action complaints were filed in the Colorado Court and the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the “Kansas Court”) alleging claims that mirror those before the Oklahoma Court. On October 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) seeking consolidation of the various cases, including any tag-along cases, and transfer of them to the Oklahoma Court. On October 8, 2020, another similar class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Defendants, on October 13, 2020, in the Kansas Court case and, on October 14, 2020, in the Colorado Court case, filed motions seeking dismissal of those complaints under the first-to-file rule. The motions before the JPML, Colorado Court, and Kansas Court are pending. Discovery in the Oklahoma Court case is ongoing.
On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action, 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 Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado (the “Weld County Court”). 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, Brima v. Lovette, et al., No. 2017 cv. 30308, was brought against all of PPC’s directors and its Chief Financial Officer in the Weld County Court. The Brima complaint contains largely the same allegations as the DiSalvio complaint. On May 4, 2017, the plaintiffs in both the DiSalvio and Brima litigations moved to (1) consolidate the two stockholder derivative cases, (2) stay the consolidated action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan putative securities class action, and (3) appoint co-lead counsel. The Weld County Court granted the motion on May 8, 2017, staying the proceedings pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Hogan litigation.
On January 24, 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 Holdings and several members of the Batista family, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties arising out of PPC’s acquisition of Moy Park. 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. Both complaints sought compensatory damages. On July 2, 2018, the Chancery Court granted a stipulation consolidating the cases and making the first complaint (Sciabacucchi) the operative complaint. Also by stipulation, various defendants have been voluntarily dismissed from the case without prejudice. The remaining defendants are JBS S.A., JBS USA Holding, and directors Lovette, Nogueira de Souza, Tomazoni, and Molina. PPC also remains in the case as a nominal defendant. On March 15, 2019, the Chancery Court denied the non-PPC defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result, the case proceeded to discovery, and trial was scheduled to commence in November 2020. On October 3, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation agreeing to settle the dispute for (1) a cash payment to PPC by the non-PPC defendants of $42.5 million less any fees and expenses awarded to the plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as any applicable taxes (the “Settlement Amount”), and (2) corporate governance changes to be implemented by PPC. No portion of the Settlement Amount will be paid by PPC to the non-PPC defendants. The settlement was approved by the Chancery Court on January 28, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the Settlement Amount was transferred to PPC, and as a result, PPC recognized income, net of legal fees, of $34.6 million, which is included in Miscellaneous, net in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 27, 2020.
Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Maryland Court”) against PPC and a number of other chicken producers, as well as WMS (Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) and Agri Stats. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing plant production and maintenance workers (“Plant Workers”). They allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act and seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present. On November 12, 2019, the Maryland Court ordered the consolidation of the four cases for pretrial purposes. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 22, 2019. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs informed the defendants and the Maryland Court that they would be amending their complaint, which they did on December 20, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint asserts largely similar allegations to the pleadings in the consolidated complaint, but was extended to include more class members and turkey processors as well as chicken processors. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on March 2, 2020, with oppositions originally due on April 24, 2020 and replies on May 21, 2020. The Maryland Court has issued a series of Standing Orders related to the exigent circumstances created by COVID-19, which extended filing deadlines by 84 days, including the deadlines for the response briefings related to defendants' motions to dismiss. The Company filed its motion to dismiss, and on September 16, 2020, the Maryland Court granted the motion without prejudice. The Maryland Court did allow, however, the plaintiffs to amend their Complaint, which they are expected to do.
On July 6, 2020, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A (“UFCW”), acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC stock between February 9, 2017 and June 3, 2020, filed a class action complaint in the Colorado Court against PPC, and Messrs. Lovette, Penn, and Sandri. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s public statements regarding its business and the drivers behind its financial results were false and misleading due to the defendants’ purported failure to disclose its participation in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the Broiler litigation and the Indictment (defined below). On September 4, 2020, UFCW and the New Mexico State Investment Council filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff under the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act. A decision on the lead plaintiff motions is currently pending.
PPC believes it has strong defenses in the pending litigations described above and intends to contest them vigorously. PPC cannot predict the outcome of these pending litigations nor when they will be resolved. The consequences of the pending litigation matters are inherently uncertain, and adverse actions, judgments or settlements in some or all of these matters may result in materially adverse monetary damages, fines, penalties or injunctive relief against PPC. Any claims or litigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could damage PPC’s reputation and make it more difficult to compete effectively or to obtain adequate insurance in the future.
DOJ Antitrust Matter
On July 1, 2019, the DOJ issued a subpoena to PPC in connection with its investigation arising from the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. The Company has been cooperating with the DOJ investigation.
On June 3, 2020, PPC learned of an indictment by a Grand Jury in the Colorado Court against Jayson Penn, the chief executive officer and president of PPC at that time, in addition to two former employees of PPC and a former employee of a different company (the “Indictment”). The Indictment alleges that the defendants entered into and engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids and fixing prices and other price-related terms for broiler chicken products
sold in the U.S., in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. On June 4, 2020, PPC learned that Mr. Penn pleaded not guilty to the charges. Effective June 15, 2020, Mr. Penn began a paid leave of absence from PPC. In connection with Mr. Penn’s leave of absence, PPC’s Board of Directors appointed the chief financial officer of PPC, Fabio Sandri, to serve in the additional role of PPC’s interim president and chief executive officer. On September 22, 2020, PPC's Board of Directors appointed Fabio Sandri as PPC's President and Chief Executive Officer in addition to his role as Chief Financial Officer. On September 22, 2020, PPC disclosed that Mr. Penn was no longer with the Company. The Company has initiated a search process to identify a new chief financial officer.
On October 13, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a plea agreement (the “Plea Agreement”) with the DOJ pursuant to which the Company agreed to (1) plead guilty to one count of conspiracy in restraint of competition involving sales of broiler chicken products in the U.S. in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and (2) pay a fine of $110,524,140. The Company recognized the fine as expense which is included in Selling, general and administrative expense in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and nine months ended September 27, 2020. Under the Plea Agreement, which is subject to the approval of the Colorado Court, the DOJ agreed not to bring further charges against the Company for any antitrust violation involving the sale of broiler chicken products in the U.S. occurring prior to the date of the Plea Agreement. The Company continues to cooperate with the DOJ in connection with the ongoing federal antitrust investigation into alleged price fixing and other anticompetitive conduct in the broiler chicken industry.
J&F Investigation 
On May 3, 2017, certain officers of J&F Investimentos S.A. (“J&F,” and together with the companies controlled by J&F, the “J&F Group”), a company organized in Brazil and an indirect controlling stockholder of the Company, including a former senior executive and former board members of the Company, entered into cooperation agreements (acordos de colaboração) (collectively, the “Cooperation Agreements”) with the Brazilian Office of the Prosecutor General (Procuradoria-Geral da República) in connection with certain illicit conduct by J&F and such individuals acting in their capacity as J&F executives. The details of such illicit conduct are set forth in separate annexes to the Cooperation Agreements, and include admissions of improper 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.
On June 5, 2017, J&F, for itself and as the controlling shareholder of the J&F Group companies, entered into a leniency agreement (the “Leniency Agreement”) with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor (Ministério Público Federal) whereby J&F assumed responsibility for the conduct that was described in the annexes to the Cooperation 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. Various proceedings by Brazilian governmental authorities remain pending against J&F and certain of its former or current officers seeking to invalidate the Cooperation Agreements and impose more severe penalties for additional alleged illicit conduct that was not disclosed in the annexes to the Cooperation Agreements.
On October 14, 2020, certain affiliates of the Company – J&F Investimentos, S.A., JBS S.A., Joesley Batista and Wesley Batista – entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) with the SEC. The Company was not a party to the Settlement, was not a respondent in the related proceedings, and is not required to make any related payment. Under the Settlement, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “SEC Order”) finding securities law violations by such affiliates that resulted in the Company, an indirect subsidiary, failing to maintain accurate books and records and internal accounting controls. According to the SEC Order, the violations, which related to certain intercompany transactions from 2009 to 2015, were unbeknownst to the Company’s management, and the SEC Order will have no impact on the Company’s previously filed financial statements or its prior assessments of internal control over financial reporting.
On October 14, 2020, J&F reached an agreement (the “J&F Plea Agreement”) with the DOJ regarding violations stemming from the same facts and conduct that were the subject of the Leniency Agreement and the Cooperation Agreements (described above). Pursuant to the J&F Plea Agreement, J&F pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The J&F Plea Agreement imposed a fine of $256,497,026, and J&F was required to make a payment of $128,248,513 under the J&F Plea Agreement (due to J&F receiving a 50% credit for amounts paid to Brazilian authorities). JBS and PPC are not parties to the J&F Plea Agreement and will not bear any liabilities arising from it. The J&F Plea Agreement resolved the U.S. criminal legal exposure of J&F and all its affiliates related to the conduct that was the subject of the Leniency Agreement and the Cooperation Agreements.