Commitments and Contingencies |
Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies LEGAL PROCEEDINGS State of Texas v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. d/b/a Wharton; and Wharton County Foods, LLC On April 23, 2020, the Company and its subsidiary Wharton County Foods, LLC (“WCF”) were named as defendants in State of Texas v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. d/b/a Wharton; and Wharton County Foods, LLC, Cause No. 2020-25427, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The State of Texas (the “State”) asserted claims based on the Company’s and WCF’s alleged violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 17.41-17.63 (“DTPA”). The State claimed that the Company and WCF offered shell eggs at excessive or exorbitant prices during the COVID-19 state of emergency and made misleading statements about shell egg prices. The State sought temporary and permanent injunctions against the Company and WCF to prevent further alleged violations of the DTPA, along with over $ 100,000 in damages. On August 13, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the State’s original petition with prejudice. On September 11, 2020, the State filed a notice of appeal, which was assigned to the Texas Court of Appeals for the First District. On August 16, 2022, the appeals court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings. On October 31, 2022, the Company and WCF appealed the First District Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Texas. On September 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of Texas denied the Company’s Petition for Review and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The district court entered a pre-trial order scheduling pre-trial proceedings and tentatively setting a trial date for August 11, 2025. Management believes the risk of material loss related to this matter to be remote. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al. v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al. As previously reported, on September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. The Company settled all of these cases, except for the claims of certain plaintiffs who sought substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs). These remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., and Nestle USA, Inc. (the “Egg Products Plaintiffs”) and, until a subsequent settlement was reached as described below, The Kellogg Company. On September 13, 2019, the case with the Egg Products Plaintiffs was remanded from a multi-district litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2002, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al. v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-8808, for trial. The Egg Products Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and other defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15. U.S.C. § 1, by agreeing to limit the production of eggs and thereby illegally to raise the prices that plaintiffs paid for processed egg products. In particular, the Egg Products Plaintiffs attacked certain features of the United Egg Producers animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many other egg On October 24, 2019, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with The Kellogg Company dismissing all claims against the Company for an amount that did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. On November 11, 2019, a stipulation for dismissal was filed with the court, and on March 28, 2022, the court dismissed the Company with prejudice. The trial of this case began on October 17, 2023. On December 1, 2023, the jury returned a decision awarding the Egg Products 17.8 million in damages. If the jury’s decision is ultimately upheld, the defendants would be jointly and severally liable for treble damages, or $ 53.3 million, subject to credit for the Kellogg settlement described above and certain other settlements with previous settling defendants, plus the Egg Product Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees. This decision is not final and remains subject to appeals by the parties. During our second fiscal quarter of 2024, we recorded an accrued expense of $ 19.6 million in selling, general and administrative expenses in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income and classified as other noncurrent liabilities in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The accrual represents our estimate of the Company’s proportional share of the reasonably possible ultimate damages award, excluding the Egg Product Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees that we believe would be approximately offset by the credits noted above. We have entered into a judgment allocation and joint defense agreement with the other major producer defendant remaining in the case, and are in discussions with other defendants regarding their contributions. Our accrual may change in the future based on the outcome of those discussions. Our accrual may also be revised in whole or in part in the future to the extent we are successful in further proceedings in the litigation. On November 29, 2023, the defendants, including the Company, filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law in their favor, known as a directed verdict, notwithstanding the jury’s decision. The court denied this motion on September 30, 2024. The Company is evaluating the court’s September 30, 2024 order and intends to continue to vigorously defend the claims asserted by the Egg Products Plaintiffs. State of Oklahoma Watershed Pollution Litigation On June 18, 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed suit, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc., Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc., George’s, Inc., Peterson Farms, Inc. and Simmons Foods, Inc., and certain of their affiliates. The State of Oklahoma claims that through the disposal of chicken litter the defendants polluted the Illinois River Watershed. This watershed provides water to eastern Oklahoma. The complaint sought injunctive relief and monetary damages, but the claim for monetary damages was dismissed by the court. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. discontinued operations in the watershed in or around 2005. Since the litigation began, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. purchased 100 % of the membership interests of Benton County Foods, LLC, which is an ongoing commercial shell egg operation within the Illinois River Watershed. Benton County Foods, LLC is not a defendant in the litigation. We also have a number of small contract producers that operate in the area. The non-jury trial in the case began in September 2009 and concluded in February 2010. On January 18, 2023, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the State of Oklahoma, but no penalties were assessed. The court found the defendants liable for state law nuisance, federal common law nuisance, and state law trespass. The court also found the producers vicariously liable for the actions of their contract producers. The court directed the parties to confer in attempt to reach agreement on appropriate remedies. On June 12, 2023, the court ordered the parties to mediate before retired Tenth
Circuit Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha, but the mediation was unsuccessful. On June 26, 2024, the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. On September 13, 2024, a status hearing was held and the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for December 3, 2024, to determine whether any legal remedy is available based on the now 14 year old record and changed circumstances of the Illinois River watershed. On September 20, 2024, the defendants filed motions to certify an interlocutory appeal and stay further proceedings pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The court has not ruled on these motions. While management believes there is a reasonable possibility of a material loss from the case, at the present time, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company due to a range of factors, including the following, among others: uncertainties inherent in any assessment of potential costs associated with injunctive relief or other penalties based on a decision in a case tried over 14 years ago based on environmental conditions that existed at the time, the lack of guidance from the court as to what might be considered appropriate remedies, the ongoing litigation with the State of Oklahoma, and uncertainty regarding what our proportionate share of any remedy would be, although we believe that our share compared to the other defendants is small. Other Matters In addition to the above, 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 should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position.
|