COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Property, Plant and Equipment In March 2017, the Company announced the selection of sites in Lindale, Mineola and Smith County, Texas, for the construction of a new poultry processing complex. The completed complex will consist of a hatchery, feed mill, processing plant and waste water treatment facility. Construction commenced on this project during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017, and initial operations of the completed complex are expected to begin during the first calendar quarter of 2019. The Company estimates the total investment in the complex will be approximately $225.0 million, and the Company intends to request the banks party to its revolving credit facility described below in "Note 7 - Credit Agreement" to increase the capital expenditure limitation related to this facility to an amount sufficient to cover the total estimated expenditures. If the Company is unsuccessful negotiating such an increase, capital budgets will be adjusted to ensure compliance with the limitations currently set forth in the revolving credit facility. As of April 30, 2018, the Company has entered into commitments totaling approximately $186.0 million related to the new complex, of which approximately $54.4 million has been spent to date. As of April 30, 2018, the Company has outstanding commitments totaling $12.6 million related to purchase agreements for future delivery of aircraft. These commitments are expected to be paid as follows: $8.5 million during the remainder of fiscal 2018 and $4.1 million during fiscal 2019. Litigation Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states’ antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. As detailed below, the Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs. On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats. On February 20, 2018, the commercial indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. We intend to continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. Between December 8, 2017 and May 16, 2018, additional purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought six separate suits against 17 poultry producers, including Sanderson Farms, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct purchaser class complaint described above and are now pending in front of the same judge. They are moving into discovery on a similar timeline as the putative class action lawsuits. It is possible additional individual actions may be filed. Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the Registrant’s Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer; and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and President, as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the Company’s SEC filings and press releases, and other public statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of the Company’s alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal antitrust laws described above. The complaint also alleges that the material misstatements were made in order to, among other things, “artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson Farms securities.” The complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and, for the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants. On January 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Company is awaiting a ruling on that appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this action or the appeal. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in the action, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. On January 30, 2017, the Company received a letter from a putative shareholder demanding that the Company take action against current and/or former officers and directors of the Company for alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The shareholder asserted that the officers and directors (i) failed to take any action to stop the alleged antitrust conspiracy described above, despite their alleged knowledge of the conspiracy, and (ii) made and/or caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose the alleged conspiracy. The shareholder also asserted that certain directors engaged in “insider sales” from which they improperly benefited. The shareholder also demanded that the Company adopt unspecified corporate governance improvements. On February 9, 2017, pursuant to statutory procedures available in connection with demands of this type, the Company’s board of directors appointed a special committee of qualified directors to determine, after conducting a reasonable inquiry, whether it is in the Company’s best interests to pursue any of the actions asserted in the shareholder’s letter. On April 26, 2017, the special committee reported to the Company’s board of directors its determination that it is not in the Company’s best interests to take any of the demanded actions at this time, and that no governance improvements related to the subject matter of the demand are needed at this time. On May 5, 2017, the special committee’s counsel informed the shareholder’s counsel of the committee’s determination. As of the date of filing of this report, and to the Company’s knowledge, no legal proceedings related to the shareholder’s demand have been filed. On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers’ compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma on its merits is pending as to the remaining defendants. On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar lawsuit in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and our subsidiaries and another poultry producer. Defendants subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings. The judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina granted a stay of litigation pending the decision on consolidation. The Company is awaiting ruling on that motion for consolidation. We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. On February 21, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. received an antitrust civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, of the State of Florida. Among other things, the demand seeks information related to the Georgia Dock Index and other information on poultry and poultry products published by the Georgia Department of Agriculture and its Poultry Market News division. The Company is cooperating fully with the investigative demand, and we are unable to predict its outcome at this time. On June 22, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, which was brought by three non-profit organizations (the Organic Consumers Association, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Food Safety) alleged that the Company is violating the California Unfair Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law by representing that its poultry products are “100% Natural” products raised with “100% Natural” farming procedures. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s products contain residues of human and animal antibiotics, other pharmaceuticals, hormones, steroids, and pesticides. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the Company from continuing its allegedly unlawful marketing program and requiring the Company to conduct a corrective advertising campaign; an accounting of the Company’s profits derived from the allegedly unlawful marketing practices; and attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. On August 2, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit on various grounds. On August 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which includes substantially similar allegations as the original complaint, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 13, 2017. On February 9, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss. On February 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 on the basis that Plaintiffs and their counsel knowingly included false or inaccurate statements and unsupported allegations in their complaints and other filings. The Court denied that motion on April 2, 2018. An initial scheduling conference was held on March 1, 2018, and discovery is underway. The lawsuit is in its early stages, and we intend to defend it vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company’s reputation and marketing program could be materially, adversely affected, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. The Company is involved in various other claims and litigation incidental to its business. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, management, upon the advice of counsel, is of the opinion that the final outcome of currently pending matters, other than those discussed above, should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position. The Company recognizes the costs of legal defense for the legal proceedings to which it is a party in the periods incurred. After a considerable analysis of each case, the Company has determined that no accrual is required for any of the foregoing matters as of April 30, 2018. Future reserves may be required if losses are deemed reasonably estimable and probable due to changes in the Company’s assumptions, the effectiveness of legal strategies, or other factors beyond the Company’s control. Future results of operations may be materially affected by the creation of reserves or by accruals of losses to reflect any adverse determinations in these legal proceedings.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Property, Plant and Equipment

In March 2017, the Company announced the selection of sites in Lindale, Mineola and Smith County, Texas, for the construction of a new poultry processing complex. The completed complex will consist of a hatchery, feed mill, processing plant and waste water treatment facility. Construction commenced on this project during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017, and initial operations of the completed complex are expected to begin during the first calendar quarter of 2019. The Company estimates the total investment in the complex will be approximately $225.0 million, and the Company intends to request the banks party to its revolving credit facility described below in "Note 7 - Credit Agreement" to increase the capital expenditure limitation related to this facility to an amount sufficient to cover the total estimated expenditures. If the Company is unsuccessful negotiating such an increase, capital budgets will be adjusted to ensure compliance with the limitations currently set forth in the revolving credit facility. As of April 30, 2018, the Company has entered into commitments totaling approximately $186.0 million related to the new complex, of which approximately $54.4 million has been spent to date.

As of April 30, 2018, the Company has outstanding commitments totaling $12.6 million related to purchase agreements for future delivery of aircraft. These commitments are expected to be paid as follows: $8.5 million during the remainder of fiscal 2018 and $4.1 million during fiscal 2019.

Litigation

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states’ antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. As detailed below, the Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats. On February 20, 2018, the commercial indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. We intend to continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

Between December 8, 2017 and May 16, 2018, additional purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought six separate suits against 17 poultry producers, including Sanderson Farms, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct purchaser class complaint described above and are now pending in front of the same judge. They are moving into discovery on a similar timeline as the putative class action lawsuits. It is possible additional individual actions may be filed.

Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the Registrant’s Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer; and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and President, as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the Company’s SEC filings and press releases, and other public statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of the Company’s alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal antitrust laws described above. The complaint also alleges that the material misstatements were made in order to, among other things, “artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson Farms securities.” The complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and, for the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants. On January 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Company is awaiting a ruling on that appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this action or the appeal. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in the action, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

On January 30, 2017, the Company received a letter from a putative shareholder demanding that the Company take action against current and/or former officers and directors of the Company for alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The shareholder asserted that the officers and directors (i) failed to take any action to stop the alleged antitrust conspiracy described above, despite their alleged knowledge of the conspiracy, and (ii) made and/or caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose the alleged conspiracy. The shareholder also asserted that certain directors engaged in “insider sales” from which they improperly benefited. The shareholder also demanded that the Company adopt unspecified corporate governance improvements. On February 9, 2017, pursuant to statutory procedures available in connection with demands of this type, the Company’s board of directors appointed a special committee of qualified directors to determine, after conducting a reasonable inquiry, whether it is in the Company’s best interests to pursue any of the actions asserted in the shareholder’s letter. On April 26, 2017, the special committee reported to the Company’s board of directors its determination that it is not in the Company’s best interests to take any of the demanded actions at this time, and that no governance improvements related to the subject matter of the demand are needed at this time. On May 5, 2017, the special committee’s counsel informed the shareholder’s counsel of the committee’s determination. As of the date of filing of this report, and to the Company’s knowledge, no legal proceedings related to the shareholder’s demand have been filed.

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers’ compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma on its merits is pending as to the remaining defendants. On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar lawsuit in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and our subsidiaries and another poultry producer. Defendants subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings. The judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina granted a stay of litigation pending the decision on consolidation. The Company is awaiting ruling on that motion for consolidation. We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

On February 21, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. received an antitrust civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, of the State of Florida. Among other things, the demand seeks information related to the Georgia Dock Index and other information on poultry and poultry products published by the Georgia Department of Agriculture and its Poultry Market News division. The Company is cooperating fully with the investigative demand, and we are unable to predict its outcome at this time.

On June 22, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, which was brought by three non-profit organizations (the Organic Consumers Association, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Food Safety) alleged that the Company is violating the California Unfair Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law by representing that its poultry products are “100% Natural” products raised with “100% Natural” farming procedures. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s products contain residues of human and animal antibiotics, other pharmaceuticals, hormones, steroids, and pesticides. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the Company from continuing its allegedly unlawful marketing program and requiring the Company to conduct a corrective advertising campaign; an accounting of the Company’s profits derived from the allegedly unlawful marketing practices; and attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. On August 2, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit on various grounds. On August 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which includes substantially similar allegations as the original complaint, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 13, 2017. On February 9, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss. On February 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 on the basis that Plaintiffs and their counsel knowingly included false or inaccurate statements and unsupported allegations in their complaints and other filings. The Court denied that motion on April 2, 2018. An initial scheduling conference was held on March 1, 2018, and discovery is underway. The lawsuit is in its early stages, and we intend to defend it vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company’s reputation and marketing program could be materially, adversely affected, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

The Company is involved in various other claims and litigation incidental to its business. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, management, upon the advice of counsel, is of the opinion that the final outcome of currently pending matters, other than those discussed above, should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position.

The Company recognizes the costs of legal defense for the legal proceedings to which it is a party in the periods incurred. After a considerable analysis of each case, the Company has determined that no accrual is required for any of the foregoing matters as of April 30, 2018. Future reserves may be required if losses are deemed reasonably estimable and probable due to changes in the Company’s assumptions, the effectiveness of legal strategies, or other factors beyond the Company’s control. Future results of operations may be materially affected by the creation of reserves or by accruals of losses to reflect any adverse determinations in these legal proceedings.