17.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General

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.

Purchase Obligations

The Company will sometimes enter into noncancelable contracts to purchase capital equipment and certain commodities such as corn, soybean meal, electricity and natural gas. At December 29, 2013, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $150.6 million, $4.8 million, $4.7 million and $0.8 million payable in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively.

Operating Leases

The Consolidated Statements of Operations include rental expense for operating leases of approximately $9.6 million, $14.3 million and $26.2 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company's future minimum lease commitments under noncancelable operating leases are as follows (in thousands):

2014	$	7,621
2015		6,599
2016		3,931
2017		2,154
2018		816
Thereafter		18
Total	$	21,139

Certain of the Company's operating leases include rent escalations. The Company includes the rent escalation in its minimum lease payments obligations and recognizes them as a component of rental expense on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease term.

The Company also maintains operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of assets at the end of the term of the lease. The terms of the lease maturities range from one to ten years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is estimated to be approximately $2.6 million; however, the actual amount would be offset by any recoverable amount based on the fair market value of the underlying leased assets. No liability has been recorded related to this contingency as the likelihood of payments under these guarantees is not considered to be probable and the fair value of such guarantees is immaterial. The Company historically has not experienced significant payments under similar residual guarantees.

Financial Instruments

Pursuant to the terms of the Subordinated Loan Agreement, we have agreed to reimburse JBS USA up to $56.5 million for draws upon any letters of credit issued for JBS USA's account that support certain obligations of the Company and its subsidiaries.

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 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 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 ("Bankruptcy Court"). 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 December 29, 2013, 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 occurred December 3, 2012. On August 27, 2013, the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment, and entered a judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing was denied on October 15, 2013. On January 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to accept their case for review. The Company is awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court on whether it will accept the case for review. If such petition is granted, the Company intends to vigorously pursue its appellate rights and defend against reinstatement of the underlying judgment of the trial court. The Fifth Circuit's decision and prior favorable trial court rulings regarding the El Dorado grower' claims suggest that the likelihood of any recovery by growers remaining in the case is too remote to maintain the previously-recorded loss accrual. Therefore, the Company reversed the accrual on September 1, 2013. 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 trial court has not scheduled a date for resuming the trial, 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 United States Department of Treasury, IRS filed an amended proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to which the IRS asserted claims that total $74.7 million. We 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 asserted that the Company had no liability for the additional U.S. federal taxes that have been asserted for pre-petition periods by the IRS. The IRS 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 have worked with the IRS through the normal processes and procedures that are available to all taxpayers outside of bankruptcy (including the Tax Court proceedings discussed below) to resolve the IRS' amended proof of claim. On December 13, 2012, we entered into two Stipulations with the IRS. The first Stipulation relates to the Company's 2003, 2005, and 2007 tax years and resolves all of the material issues in the case. The second Stipulation relates to the Company as the successor in interest to Gold Kist for the tax years ended June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005, and resolves all substantive issues in the case. These Stipulations account for approximately $29.3 million of the amended proof of claim and should result in no additional tax due.

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. On December 11, 2013, the Tax Court issued its opinion in the Tax Court Case holding the loss that Gold Kist claimed for its tax year ended June 30, 2004 is capital in nature. On January 10, 2014, PPC filed both a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Full Tax Court review of both its Motion for Reconsideration and any order issued in response to such motion. On January 15, 2014, the Tax Court issued an order requesting the IRS to respond to PPC's Motion for Reconsideration on or before February 18, 2014. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its appellate rights. This proceeding accounts for approximately $45.4 million of the amended proof of claim.

Upon the initial filing of the Gold Kist tax return for the year ended June 30, 2004, the Company assessed the likelihood that the position related to the proceeding would be sustained upon examination and determined that it met the recognition threshold and the full amount of benefit was recognized. We continue to believe the position is more likely than not of being sustained. If adversely determined, the outcome could have a material effect on the Company's operating results and financial position.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") investigated allegations of identity theft within our workforce. With our cooperation, ICE arrested approximately 350 of our employees in 2008 believed to have engaged in identity theft at five of our facilities. On December 30, 2009, PPC, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Texas, and the Dallas Office of ICE entered into a non-prosecution agreement and civil resolution of the government's investigation. Under this agreement: (i) the government agreed not to proceed either criminally or civilly against PPC, and to end its investigation of the immigration-related matters, relating to both the company and its current and former officers, employees and directors; (ii) PPC agreed to an immigration compliance program that would remain in effect for at least the 5-year term of the agreement; and (iii) PPC will pay an aggregate of $4.5 million, which approximates the amount the Company had previously accrued for this matter, to the government in four annual installments. We paid the first three installments of $1.1 million in 2010, 2011 and 2012. We also paid the final installment in 2013. The parties acknowledged that PPC was admitting to no civil liability or criminal culpability as a result of the settlement. However, no assurances can be given that further enforcement efforts by governmental authorities against our employees or the Company (i) will not disrupt a portion of our workforce or our operations at one or more of our facilities, thereby negatively impacting our business or (ii) result in the assessment of fines against us that could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.