XML 45 R30.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.25.4
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2025
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 28, 2025, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $483.7 million payable in 2026, $281.6 million payable in 2027, $1.8 million payable in 2028, $1.7 million payable in 2029 and $9.0 million payable thereafter.
Operating Leases
Additional information regarding operating leases is included in “Note 3. 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. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the litigation matters or other actions nor when they will be resolved. The consequences of the pending litigation matters are inherently uncertain, and settlements, adverse actions, or adverse judgments in some or all of these matters, including investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) or the Attorneys General, may result in monetary damages, fines, penalties, or injunctive relief against the Company, which could be material and could adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. Any claims or litigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could damage the Company’s reputation and make it more difficult to compete effectively or to obtain adequate insurance in the future. In addition, the U.S. government’s recent focus on market dynamics in the meat processing industry could expose the Company to additional costs and risks.
Tax Claims and Proceedings
During 2014 and 2015, the Mexican Tax Administration Service (the “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). Avícola appealed the opinion, and on January 31, 2023, the appeal as to tax year 2009 was dismissed by the Mexico Supreme Court. During 2023 Avícola paid $25.9 million for tax year 2009. The opinion for tax year 2010 is still under appeal. Accordingly, Avícola has an accrual of $16.3 million as of December 28, 2025 with regard to the tax year 2010.
On May 12, 2022, the SAT 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. Additionally, the seller in this acquisition also received an assessment from the SAT related to the sale of its indirect equity interest of Tyson de México. The transaction agreement related to such acquisition contains certain mutual indemnification provisions, and both seller and buyer provided notice of indemnification claims to the other party. In response to the indemnification claims, on November 14, 2025, in a strategic effort to mitigate risk and in exchange for monetary compensation, PPC settled the indemnification claims and entered into an agreement with the seller in which PPC agreed to assume all tax liabilities in connection with the seller’s assessment, assume defense of such assessment, and waive all potential indemnification claims against the seller. In response to the underlying substantive assessments by the SAT, the Mexican subsidiaries of PPC filed a petition to nullify these assessments. The District Court issued a judgment on January 20, 2025, in which the court now claims that the seller (a Tyson entity) owed tax due to the indirect transfer of Mexican assets in connection with the sale, and that PPC or its subsidiaries should have withheld such taxes. The Collegiate (appellate) Court (the “Collegiate Court”) issued a decision on February 7, 2025 remanding the dispute to the
Tax Court. On March 19, 2025, the Tax Court ruled that, for tax purposes and with respect to both assessments, the sale of the equity of Provemex occurred on June 29, 2015, and that Provemex was a Mexican tax resident on that date. PPC appealed this ruling to the Collegiate Court on April 23, 2025 and will continue to defend this matter or seek a reasonable settlement with the SAT where available. The amount under appeal for the remaining assessment, including any penalties and interest, is approximately $230.0 million. PPC will seek a reasonable settlement with the tax authority where it is available. PPC has determined the loss is probable and as such have recorded an accrual of $88.2 million, which is reflected in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 28, 2025.
In 2019 and 2020, the U.K. Revenue & Customs Authority (“HMRC”) opened reviews of the 2017 and 2018 tax returns of Onix Investments UK Ltd (“Onix”) in which HMRC evaluated the deductibility of certain interest related expenses incurred by Onix (the “Deductions”). The Deductions total $7.9 million for tax year 2017 and $32.1 million for tax year 2018. On April 12, 2024, HMRC concluded that the Deductions should be disallowed and Onix appealed. On October 8, 2024, HMRC issued a Review Conclusion Letter affirming the prior decision to disallow the Deductions. Onix has timely filed a Grounds of Appeal, and on March 10, 2025, HMRC filed their Statement of Case (a preliminary summary of arguments). A case management timetable has been agreed upon between Onix and HMRC, and approved by the court, which includes a tentative hearing window between June and October of 2026. Onix will continue to defend this matter. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.
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 (the “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. PPC entered into agreements to settle all claims made by the three certified classes for an aggregate total of $195.5 million, each of which has received final approval from the Illinois Court and settlements were paid in fiscal year 2021. PPC continues to defend itself against the direct-action plaintiffs as well as parties that have opted out of the class settlements (collectively, the “Broiler Opt Outs”). On February 11, 2025, the motions to dismiss Phase 2 of the Broiler Antitrust Litigation that had been filed by PPC and other defendants were denied. Phase 2 discovery has commenced. PPC will seek reasonable settlements with the Broiler Opt Outs where they are available. To date, PPC has recognized an expense of $683.1 million, including a $100.6 million incremental expense in the year ended December 28, 2025, to cover settlements with various Broiler Opt Outs. PPC recognized all settlement expenses related to this matter within SG&A expense in our Consolidated Statements of Income.
Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, a series of 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, styled as Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al., No.19-cv-02521. 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. PPC entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the Poultry Workers Class for $29.0 million and paid the plaintiffs this amount during 2021, though the agreement is still subject to final approval by the Maryland Court. PPC recognized this settlement expense in SG&A expense in our Consolidated Statements of Income in fiscal year 2021 and incrementally in fiscal year 2022.
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 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. On June 24, 2024, a settlement was reached in the amount of $100.0 million. This settlement was paid in fiscal year 2024. PPC recognized these settlement expenses within SG&A expense in our Consolidated Statements of Income. On January 7, 2025, the Court granted final approval of the Company’s settlement and dismissed the case.
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 against PPC and its named executive officers styled as Hogan v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-02611. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading. On December 6, 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in principal with the putative class in the amount of $41.5 million. On June 27, 2025, the settlement agreement received final court approval. PPC paid the settlement amount in fiscal year 2025. We have recognized this expense in SG&A expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
On July 17, 2025, a stockholder derivative action entitled City of Miami Beach Fire and Police Pension et al. v. JBS Wisconsin Properties. LLC et al. was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against PPC, as nominal defendant, as well as PPC’s directors, and majority stockholder, JBS Wisconsin Properties, LLC. The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties connected to an amendment to PPC’s certificate of incorporation in 2024, that, according to the plaintiffs benefited JBS Wisconsin Properties, LLC to the detriment of public shareholder, and seeks, among other things, equitable relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2025. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses at this early stage in the matter.
U.S. State Matters
From February 21, 2017 through May 4, 2021, the Attorneys General for multiple U.S. states issued civil investigative demands (“CIDs”). The CIDs requested, among other things, data and information related to the acquisition and processing of broiler chickens and the sale of chicken products. PPC cooperated with the Attorneys General in these states in producing documents pursuant to the CIDs.
U.S. Federal Matters
On February 9, 2022, PPC learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into human resources antitrust matters, on October 6, 2022, PPC learned that the DOJ opened a civil investigation into grower contracts and payment practices and on October 2, 2023, received a civil investigative demand requesting information from PPC. PPC cooperated with the DOJ in its investigations and CID.