COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 23, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

     We are a party to many routine contracts in which we provide general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, we have not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities as based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

     The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the Company’s opinion, it has made appropriate and adequate accruals for claims where necessary; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if significantly different than the amounts accrued, the ultimate outcome could have a material effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. For a discussion of the material legal proceedings and claims, see Part II, Item 1. “Legal Proceedings.” Below is a summary of some of these material proceedings and claims. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made and intends to vigorously defend these cases.

     On December 1, 2008, Pilgrim’s and six of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The cases were jointly administered under Case No. 08-45664. The Company emerged from Chapter 11 on December 28, 2009. The Company is the named defendant in several pre-petition lawsuits that, as of September 23, 2012, have not been resolved. Among the claims presently pending are claims brought against certain current and former directors, executive officers and employees of the Company, the Pilgrim’s Pride Administrative Committee and the Pilgrim’s Pride Pension Committee seeking unspecified damages under section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. These claims were brought by individual participants in the Pilgrim’s Pride Retirement Savings Plan, individually and on behalf of a putative class, alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan participants and beneficiaries or otherwise violated ERISA. Although the Company is not a named defendant in these claims, our bylaws require us to indemnify our current and former directors and officers from any liabilities and expenses incurred by them in connection with actions they took in good faith while serving as an officer or director. In these actions the plaintiffs assert claims in excess of $35.0 million. The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the Company cannot be determined at this time.

     Other claims presently pending against the Company are claims seeking unspecified damages brought by current or former contract chicken growers who allege, along with other assertions, that the Company breached grower contracts and made false representations to induce the plaintiffs into building chicken farms and entering into chicken growing agreements with the Company. In the case styled Shelia Adams, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, on September 30, 2011, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law stating that the Company violated section 192(e) of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by purportedly attempting to manipulate the price of chicken by idling the El Dorado, Arkansas complex and rejecting the El Dorado growers' contracts. The trial court awarded damages in the amount of $25.8 million. Afterward, the Company filed post-judgment motions attacking the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which, on December 28, 2011, were granted in part and resulted in a reduction of the damages award from $25.8 million to $25.6 million. On January 19, 2012, the Company appealed the findings of fact and conclusions of law and decision concerning the post-judgment motions to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral Argument is scheduled for December 3, 2012. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its appellate rights and defend against the underlying judgment. While the outstanding judgment is reasonably possible, the Company has recorded an estimated probable loss that is less than the outstanding judgment. The remaining growers' claims were scheduled for trial during the summer and fall of 2012. Although the trial associated with the growers' claims from the Farmerville, Louisiana complex was completed without a ruling, the trial associated with the growers' claims from the Nacogdoches, Texas complex have not been completed, and the trials associated with the growers' claims from the De Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes have been indefinitely postponed by court order. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Although the likelihood of financial loss related to the remaining growers' claims is reasonably possible, an estimate of potential loss cannot be determined at this time because of now conflicting legal authority, the factual nature of the various growers' individual claims, and a new judge who will preside over the remaining bench trials. There can be no assurances that other similar claims may not be brought against the Company.

     The IRS has filed an amended proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to which the IRS asserts claims that total $74.7 million. We have filed in the Bankruptcy Court (i) an objection to the IRS' amended proof of claim, and (ii) a motion requesting the Bankruptcy Court to determine our U.S. federal tax liability pursuant to Sections 105 and 505 of the Bankruptcy Code. The objection and motion assert that the Company has no liability for the additional U.S. federal taxes that have been asserted for pre-petition periods by the IRS. The IRS has responded in opposition to our objection and motion. On July 8, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted our unopposed motion requesting that the Bankruptcy Court abstain from determining our federal tax liability. As a result, we are working with the IRS through the normal processes and procedures that are available to all taxpayers outside of bankruptcy (including the United States Tax Court (“Tax Court”) proceedings discussed below) to resolve the IRS' amended proof of claim.

     In connection with the amended proof of claim, on May 26, 2010, we filed a petition in Tax Court in response to a Notice of Deficiency that was issued to the Company as the successor in interest to Gold Kist. The Notice of Deficiency and the Tax Court proceeding relate to a loss that Gold Kist claimed for its tax year ended June 30, 2004. The matter is currently in litigation before the Tax Court.

     On August 10, 2010, we filed two petitions in Tax Court. The first petition relates to three Notices of Deficiency that were issued to us with respect to our 2003, 2005 and 2007 tax years. The second petition relates to a Notice of Deficiency that was issued to us with respect to Gold Kist’s tax year ended June 30, 2005 and its short tax year ended September 30, 2005. Both cases are currently in litigation before the Tax Court.

     We express no opinion as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to us related to the above Tax Court cases. If adversely determined, the outcome could have a material effect on the Company’s operating results and financial position.

     The Notices of Deficiency and the Tax Court proceedings discussed above cover the same tax years and the same amounts that were asserted by the IRS in its $74.7 million amended proof of claim that was filed in the Bankruptcy Court.

     The claims of former growers from Live Oak, Florida were recently settled by the Company for an amount equal to approximately $1.4 million, which is substantially less than the amount requested in the growers' proofs of claim filed in the bankruptcy proceedings. Prior to the settlement, the Company had prevailed on the growers' alleged federal and state statutory and common law claims. The sole remaining issue that we settled was related to the damage calculations of the growers' contractual claims.