COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Commitments
We lease equipment, properties and certain farms for which total rentals approximated $200 million, $193 million and $183 million, in fiscal 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Most leases have initial terms of up to seven years, some with varying renewal periods. The most significant obligations assumed under the terms of the leases are the upkeep of the facilities and payments of insurance and property taxes.
Minimum lease commitments under non-cancelable leases at September 28, 2013, were: |
| | | |
| in millions |
|
2014 | $ | 97 |
|
2015 | 69 |
|
2016 | 46 |
|
2017 | 27 |
|
2018 | 16 |
|
2019 and beyond | 78 |
|
Total | $ | 333 |
|
We guarantee obligations of certain outside third parties, which consists of a lease and grower loans, all of which are substantially collateralized by the underlying assets. Terms of the underlying debt cover periods up to ten years, and the maximum potential amount of future payments as of September 28, 2013, was $64 million. We also maintain operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of the underlying leased assets at the end of the term of the lease. The remaining terms of the lease maturities cover periods over the next seven years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is $58 million, of which $52 million would be recoverable through various recourse provisions and an additional undeterminable recoverable amount based on the fair value of the underlying leased assets. The likelihood of material payments under these guarantees is not considered probable. At September 28, 2013, and September 29, 2012, no material liabilities for guarantees were recorded.
We have cash flow assistance programs in which certain livestock suppliers participate. Under these programs, we pay an amount for livestock equivalent to a standard cost to grow such livestock during periods of low market sales prices. The amounts of such payments that are in excess of the market sales price are recorded as receivables and accrue interest. Participating suppliers are obligated to repay these receivables balances when market sales prices exceed this standard cost, or upon termination of the agreement. Our maximum obligation associated with these programs is limited to the fair value of each participating livestock supplier’s net tangible assets. The potential maximum obligation as of September 28, 2013, was approximately $340 million. The total receivables under these programs were $44 million and $25 million at September 28, 2013, and September 29, 2012, respectively, and are included, net of allowance for uncollectible amounts, in Accounts Receivable in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Even though these programs are limited to the net tangible assets of the participating livestock suppliers, we also manage a portion of our credit risk associated with these programs by obtaining security interests in livestock suppliers’ assets. After analyzing residual credit risks and general market conditions, we have recorded an allowance for these programs’ estimated uncollectible receivables of $15 million and $10 million at September 28, 2013, and September 29, 2012, respectively.
Additionally, we enter into future purchase commitments for various items, such as grains, livestock contracts and fixed grower fees. At September 28, 2013, these commitments totaled: |
| | | |
| in millions |
|
2014 | $ | 1,482 |
|
2015 | 54 |
|
2016 | 48 |
|
2017 | 33 |
|
2018 | 24 |
|
2019 and beyond | 74 |
|
Total | $ | 1,715 |
|
Contingencies
We are involved in various claims and legal proceedings. We routinely assess the likelihood of adverse judgments or outcomes to those matters, as well as ranges of probable losses, to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. We record accruals for such matters to the extent that we conclude a loss is probable and the financial impact, should an adverse outcome occur, is reasonably estimable. Such accruals are reflected in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. In our opinion, we have made appropriate and adequate accruals for these matters and believe the probability of a material loss beyond the amounts accrued to be remote; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if accruals are not adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Listed below are certain claims made against the Company and/or our subsidiaries for which the potential exposure is considered material to the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims made and intend to vigorously defend these matters.
We have pending against us a lawsuit styled DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Pennsylvania, August 22, 2000) in which the plaintiffs allege that we failed to compensate certain poultry plant employees for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict and final judgment entered in our favor on June 22, 2006. On September 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. We sought rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 5, 2007. The United States Supreme Court denied our petition for a writ of certiorari on June 9, 2008. On October 4, 2013, the District Court ordered the parties to provide a status report within ten days or the case would be dismissed without prejudice. Neither party made such a filing, so the case was dismissed without prejudice.
We have pending eleven separate wage and hour actions involving Tyson Fresh Meats Inc.’s plants located in Garden City, Kansas (Garcia, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Kansas, May 15, 2006); Storm Lake, Iowa (Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D. Iowa, February 6, 2007); Columbus Junction, Iowa (Guyton (f/k/a Robinson), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, September 12, 2007); Madison, Nebraska (Acosta, et al. v Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Nebraska, February 29, 2008); Dakota City, Nebraska (Gomez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., D. Nebraska, January 16, 2008); Perry and Waterloo, Iowa (Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008); Logansport, Indiana (Carter, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., N.D. Indiana, April 29, 2008); Goodlettsville, Tennessee (Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc., and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., M.D. Tennessee, February 6, 2009); Emporia, Kansas (Abdiaziz, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Kansas, September 30, 2011); and Joslin, Illinois (Murray, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., C.D. Illinois, January 2, 2008; and DeVoss v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, C.D. Illinois, March 2, 2011). The actions allege we failed to pay employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for the time it takes to change into protective work uniforms, safety equipment and other sanitary and protective clothing worn by employees, and for walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas in violation of the FLSA and analogous state laws. The plaintiffs seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. Each case is proceeding in its jurisdiction.
| |
• | After a trial in the Garcia case involving our Garden City, Kansas facility, a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was entered on March 17, 2011. Exclusive of pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, the jury found violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work activities and awarded damages in the amount of $503,011. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an application for attorneys’ fees and expenses which we contested. On December 7, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' counsel's application and awarded a total of $3,609,723. We filed an appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 27, 2012. Oral argument is scheduled for November 18, 2013. |
| |
• | A jury trial was held in the Bouaphakeo case, which involves our Storm Lake, Iowa pork plant, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work activities. The trial court also awarded the plaintiffs liquidated damages, resulting in total damages awarded in the amount of $5,784,758. We have appealed the jury's verdict and trial court's award. The plaintiffs' counsel has also filed an application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $2,692,145. |
| |
• | A jury trial was held in the Guyton case, which involves our Columbus Junction, Iowa pork plant, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Tyson on April 25, 2012. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. |
| |
• | A bench trial was held in the Acosta case, which involves our Madison, Nebraska pork plant, in January 2013. In May 2013 the trial court awarded the plaintiffs $5,733,943 for unpaid overtime wages. Subsequently, the court ordered the class of plaintiffs expanded, and the plaintiffs submitted an updated calculation of $6,258,492 for unpaid overtime wages as reflected by payroll data through the date of its order expanding the class. A judgment has not yet been entered. |
| |
• | A jury trial in the Gomez case, which involves our Dakota City, Nebraska beef plant, was held, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on April 3, 2013. On October 2, 2013, the trial court denied the parties’ post-trial motions and entered judgment awarding unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and penalties totaling $4,960,787. We filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2013. |
| |
• | The trial court in the Edwards case, which involves the Perry and Waterloo, Iowa facilities, decertified the state law class and granted other pre-trial motions that resulted in judgment in our favor with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims. |
| |
• | The parties in the Carter case, which involves our Logansport, Indiana pork plant, agreed to settle all claims for $950,000. The parties filed a joint motion for approval of the settlement, but the plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to certify a class of plaintiffs while the joint motion for approval of the settlement was pending. On October 30, 2013 we filed a motion with the court to enforce the settlement. |
| |
• | The trial court in the Abadeer case, which involves the Goodlettsville, Tennessee plant, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part, finding that certain pre- and post-shift activities were compensable and our non-payment for those activities was willful and not in good faith. The trial for the remaining issues, including damages, is scheduled to begin April 15, 2014. |
We have pending one wage and hour action involving our Tyson Prepared Foods plant located in Jefferson, Wisconsin (Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., Jefferson County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court, October 20, 2010). The plaintiffs allege that employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing and the associated time it takes to walk to and from their workstations post-donning and pre-doffing of protective and sanitary clothing. Six named plaintiffs seek to act as state law class representatives on behalf of all current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 16, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a state law class of all hourly employees who have worked at the Jefferson plant from October 20, 2008, to the present. We filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, or, in the alternative, to limit the claims made for non-compensable clothes changing activities. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Tyson on August 31, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 5, 2012. On August 1, 2013, the appeals court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, concluding that the applicable activities at this plant are compensable, subject to certain defenses. We have petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for further review.
On June 19, 2005, the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Environment of the State of Oklahoma filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against us, three of our subsidiaries and six other poultry integrators. The complaint, which was subsequently amended, asserts a number of state and federal causes of action including, but not limited to, counts under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and state-law public nuisance theories. The amended complaint asserts that defendants and certain contract growers who are not named in the amended complaint polluted the surface waters, groundwater and associated drinking water supplies of the Illinois River Watershed (IRW) through the land application of poultry litter. Oklahoma asserts that this alleged pollution has also caused extensive injury to the environment (including soils and sediments) of the IRW and that the defendants have been unjustly enriched. Oklahoma’s claims cover the entire IRW, which encompasses more than one million acres of land and the natural resources (including lakes and waterways) contained therein. Oklahoma seeks wide-ranging relief, including injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $800 million, an unspecified amount in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. We and the other defendants have denied liability, asserted various defenses, and filed a third-party complaint that asserts claims against other persons and entities whose activities may have contributed to the pollution alleged in the amended complaint. The district court has stayed proceedings on the third party complaint pending resolution of Oklahoma’s claims against the defendants. On October 31, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join the Cherokee Nation as a required party or, in the alternative, for judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing. This motion was granted in part and denied in part on July 22, 2009. In its ruling, the district court dismissed Oklahoma’s claims for cost recovery and for natural resources damages under CERCLA and for unjust enrichment under Oklahoma common law. This ruling also narrowed the scope of Oklahoma’s remaining claims by dismissing all damage claims under its causes of action for Oklahoma common law nuisance, federal common law nuisance, and Oklahoma common law trespass, leaving only its claims for injunctive relief for trial. On August 18, 2009, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Oklahoma’s claims for violations of the Oklahoma Registered Poultry Feeding Operations Act. Oklahoma later voluntarily dismissed the remainder of this claim. On September 2, 2009, the Cherokee Nation filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit. Its motion to intervene was denied on September 15, 2009, and the Cherokee Nation filed a notice of appeal of that ruling in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 17, 2009. A non-jury trial of the case began on September 24, 2009. At the close of Oklahoma’s case-in-chief, the Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss claims based on RCRA, nuisance per se, and health risks related to bacteria. The defense rested its case on January 13, 2010, and closing arguments were held on February 11, 2010. On September 21, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Cherokee Nation’s motion to intervene. On October 6, 2010, the Cherokee Nation and the State of Oklahoma filed a petition for rehearing or en banc review seeking reconsideration of this ruling. The Court of Appeals denied this petition. The district court has not yet rendered its decision from the trial, which ended in February 2010.
