COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 25, 2022
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. Purchase Obligations The Company will sometimes enter into noncancelable contracts to purchase capital equipment and certain commodities such as corn, soybean meal, wheat and energy. As of December 25, 2022, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $588.1 million payable in 2023, $115.2 million payable in 2024, $2.1 million payable in 2025, $2.0 million payable in 2026 and $14.4 million payable thereafter. Operating Leases Additional information regarding operating leases is included in “Note 4. Leases.” 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. Tax Claims and Proceedings During 2014 and 2015, the Mexican Tax Administration Service (“SAT”) opened a review of Avícola Pilgrim’s Pride de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Avícola”) with regard to tax years 2009 and 2010. In both instances, the SAT claims that controlled company status did not exist for certain subsidiaries because Avícola did not own 50% of the shares in voting rights of Incubadora Hidalgo, S. de R.L de C.V. and Comercializadora 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, according to the SAT, Avícola 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). Avícola appealed the opinion, and on January 31, 2023, the appeal as to tax year 2009 was dismissed by the Mexico Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Company has accrued $39.2 million with regard to both tax years in connection with the dismissal. PPC recognized this expense in Income tax expense in the Consolidated Statement of Income statement for year ended December 25, 2022. On May 12, 2022, the Mexican Tax Authorities issued tax assessments against Pilgrim’s Pride, S. de R.L. de C.V. and Provemex Holdings, LLC in connection with PPC’s acquisition of Tyson de México. Following the acquisition, PPC re-domiciled Provemex Holdings, LLC from the U.S. to Mexico. The tax authorities claim that Provemex Holdings, LLC was a Mexican entity at the time of the acquisition and, as a result, was obligated to pay taxes on the sale. The Mexican subsidiaries of PPC are currently appealing these assessments. Amounts under appeal are approximately $255.0 million for such tax assessments. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time. U.S. Litigation Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of federal class action lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (“Illinois Court”) against PPC and other defendants by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws and styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 (“Broiler Antitrust Litigation”). 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: the direct purchasers (“Broiler DPPs”), the commercial and institutional indirect purchasers (“Broiler CIIPPs”), and the end-user consumer indirect purchasers (“Broiler EUCPs”). Between December 8, 2017 and September 1, 2021, 82 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual direct purchaser entities (“Broiler DAPs”) naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints, though some added allegations of price fixing and bid rigging on certain sales. The Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling order for certain plaintiffs who limited their claims to reduction of output, which sets the first trial date on September 12, 2023. The schedule for the rest of the plaintiffs is still awaiting an order from the Illinois Court. On May 27, 2022, the Illinois Court certified each of the three classes. PPC has entered into agreements to settle all claims made by the Broiler DPPs, Broiler CIIPPs, and Broiler EUCPs, for an aggregate total of $195.5 million, each of which has received final approval from the Illinois Court. PPC continues to defend itself against the Broiler DAPs as well as parties that have opted out of the class settlements (collectively, the “Broiler Opt Outs”). PPC will seek reasonable settlements where they are available. To date, PPC has recognized an expense of $514.4 million to cover settlements with various Broiler Opt Outs. PPC recognized these settlement expenses in SG&A expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 25, 2022 and December 26, 2021. 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 (“Maryland Court”) against PPC and a number of other chicken producers, as well as Webber, Meng, Sahl & Company and Agri Stats. The plaintiffs are a putative class of poultry processing plant production and maintenance workers (“Poultry Workers Class”) and allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Poultry Workers Class in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 18, 2020, which the Maryland Court denied on March 10, 2021. On June 14, 2021, PPC entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the Poultry Workers Class for $29.0 million, though the agreement is still subject to final approval by the Maryland Court. On February 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a an amended complaint, which extended the relevant period, added defendants, and included additional workers in the class. PPC recognizes these settlement expenses within SG&A expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC and other chicken 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. The complaint was consolidated with several subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaints and styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which the Oklahoma Court denied as to PPC and certain other defendants. PPC, therefore, continues to litigate against the putative class plaintiffs. On October 20, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of certain PPC stockholders, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (“Colorado Court”) against PPC and its named executive officers styled as Hogan v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-02611 (“Hogan Litigation”). 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 Broilers Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, and (3) PPC’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct. On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Colorado Court granted on April 19, 2021. On May 17, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for amended judgment, which the Colorado Court denied on November 29, 2021. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal on December 28, 2021, and the appeal was opened in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is now fully briefed, including oral argument on January 17, 2023, and is awaiting a decision. Between March 9, 2017 and April 17, 2017, a series of putative stockholder derivative class actions were brought against all of PPC’s directors and two executives, William Lovette and Fabio Sandri, in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado (“Weld County Court”). The complaints allege, 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 Broiler Antitrust Litigation and issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan Litigation. The complaints were amended and consolidated, adding former PPC executives Jayson Penn, Roger Austin, and Jimmie Little as named defendants, and styled as DiSalvio and Brima v. Tomazoni, et al., 2017 CV 30207. Following a series of stays in the action, PPC filed a motion to dismiss, which the Weld County Court granted in its entirety and with prejudice on December 12, 2022. On December 27, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which PPC plans to oppose in due course. U.S. State Matters From February 21, 2017 through May 4, 2021, the Attorneys General for multiple U.S. states have issued civil investigative demands (“CIDs”). The CIDs request, among other things, data and information related to the acquisition and processing of broiler chickens and the sale of chicken products. PPC is cooperating with the Attorneys General in these states in producing documents pursuant to the CIDs. On September 1, 2020, February 22, 2021, and October 28, 2021, the Attorneys General in New Mexico (State of New Mexico v. Koch Foods, et al., D-101-CV-2020-01891), Alaska (State of Alaska v. Agri Stats, Inc., et al., 3AN-21-04632), and Washington (State of Washington v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., 21-2-14174-5), respectively, filed complaints against PPC based on allegations similar to those asserted in the Broiler Antitrust Litigation. PPC has answered all of the complaints and each case is now in discovery. U.S. Federal Matters On February 9, 2022, the Company learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into human resources antitrust matters, and on October 6, 2022 the Company learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into grower contracts and payment practices. The Company has begun, and will continue, to cooperate with the DOJ in its investigations.

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 will sometimes enter into noncancelable contracts to purchase capital equipment and certain commodities such as corn, soybean meal, wheat and energy. As of December 25, 2022, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $588.1 million payable in 2023, $115.2 million payable in 2024, $2.1 million payable in 2025, $2.0 million payable in 2026 and $14.4 million payable thereafter.

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.

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.

During 2014 and 2015, the Mexican Tax Administration Service (“SAT”) opened a review of Avícola Pilgrim’s Pride de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Avícola”) with regard to tax years 2009 and 2010. In both instances, the SAT claims that controlled company status did not exist for certain subsidiaries because Avícola did not own 50% of the shares in voting rights of Incubadora Hidalgo, S. de R.L de C.V. and Comercializadora 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, according to the SAT, Avícola 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). Avícola appealed the opinion, and on January 31, 2023, the appeal as to tax year 2009 was dismissed by the Mexico Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Company has accrued $39.2 million with regard to both tax years in connection with the dismissal. PPC recognized this expense in Income tax expense in the Consolidated Statement of Income statement for year ended December 25, 2022.

On May 12, 2022, the Mexican Tax Authorities issued tax assessments against Pilgrim’s Pride, S. de R.L. de C.V. and Provemex Holdings, LLC in connection with PPC’s acquisition of Tyson de México. Following the acquisition, PPC re-domiciled Provemex Holdings, LLC from the U.S. to Mexico. The tax authorities claim that Provemex Holdings, LLC was a Mexican entity at the time of the acquisition and, as a result, was obligated to pay taxes on the sale. The Mexican subsidiaries of PPC are currently appealing these assessments. Amounts under appeal are approximately $255.0 million for such tax assessments. No loss has been recorded for these amounts at this time.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of federal class action lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (“Illinois Court”) against PPC and other defendants by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws and styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 (“Broiler Antitrust Litigation”). 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: the direct purchasers (“Broiler DPPs”), the commercial and institutional indirect purchasers (“Broiler CIIPPs”), and the end-user consumer indirect purchasers (“Broiler EUCPs”). Between December 8, 2017 and September 1, 2021, 82 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual direct purchaser entities (“Broiler DAPs”) naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints, though some added allegations of price

fixing and bid rigging on certain sales. The Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling order for certain plaintiffs who limited their claims to reduction of output, which sets the first trial date on September 12, 2023. The schedule for the rest of the plaintiffs is still awaiting an order from the Illinois Court. On May 27, 2022, the Illinois Court certified each of the three classes. PPC has entered into agreements to settle all claims made by the Broiler DPPs, Broiler CIIPPs, and Broiler EUCPs, for an aggregate total of $195.5 million, each of which has received final approval from the Illinois Court. PPC continues to defend itself against the Broiler DAPs as well as parties that have opted out of the class settlements (collectively, the “Broiler Opt Outs”). PPC will seek reasonable settlements where they are available. To date, PPC has recognized an expense of $514.4 million to cover settlements with various Broiler Opt Outs. PPC recognized these settlement expenses in SG&A expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 25, 2022 and December 26, 2021.

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 (“Maryland Court”) against PPC and a number of other chicken producers, as well as Webber, Meng, Sahl & Company and Agri Stats. The plaintiffs are a putative class of poultry processing plant production and maintenance workers (“Poultry Workers Class”) and allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Poultry Workers Class in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 18, 2020, which the Maryland Court denied on March 10, 2021. On June 14, 2021, PPC entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the Poultry Workers Class for $29.0 million, though the agreement is still subject to final approval by the Maryland Court. On February 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a an amended complaint, which extended the relevant period, added defendants, and included additional workers in the class. PPC recognizes these settlement expenses within SG&A expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC and other chicken 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. The complaint was consolidated with several subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaints and styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which the Oklahoma Court denied as to PPC and certain other defendants. PPC, therefore, continues to litigate against the putative class plaintiffs.

On October 20, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of certain PPC stockholders, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (“Colorado Court”) against PPC and its named executive officers styled as Hogan v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-02611 (“Hogan Litigation”). 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 Broilers Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, and (3) PPC’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct. On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Colorado Court granted on April 19, 2021. On May 17, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for amended judgment, which the Colorado Court denied on November 29, 2021. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal on December 28, 2021, and the appeal was opened in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is now fully briefed, including oral argument on January 17, 2023, and is awaiting a decision.

Between March 9, 2017 and April 17, 2017, a series of putative stockholder derivative class actions were brought against all of PPC’s directors and two executives, William Lovette and Fabio Sandri, in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the County of Weld in Colorado (“Weld County Court”). The complaints allege, 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 Broiler Antitrust Litigation and issuing false and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan Litigation. The complaints were amended and consolidated, adding former PPC executives Jayson Penn, Roger Austin, and Jimmie Little as named defendants, and styled as DiSalvio and Brima v. Tomazoni, et al., 2017 CV 30207. Following a series of stays in the action, PPC filed a motion to dismiss, which the Weld County Court granted in its entirety and with prejudice on December 12, 2022. On December 27, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which PPC plans to oppose in due course.

From February 21, 2017 through May 4, 2021, the Attorneys General for multiple U.S. states have issued civil investigative demands (“CIDs”). The CIDs request, among other things, data and information related to the acquisition and processing of broiler chickens and the sale of chicken products. PPC is cooperating with the Attorneys General in these states in producing documents pursuant to the CIDs.

Washington (State of Washington v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., 21-2-14174-5), respectively, filed complaints against PPC based on allegations similar to those asserted in the Broiler Antitrust Litigation. PPC has answered all of the complaints and each case is now in discovery.

On February 9, 2022, the Company learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into human resources antitrust matters, and on October 6, 2022 the Company learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into grower contracts and payment practices. The Company has begun, and will continue, to cooperate with the DOJ in its investigations.