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 so the case will be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Management believes the risk of material loss related to this matter to be Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al. On April 30, 2020, the Company was named as one of several defendants in Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-461, in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The defendants include numerous grocery stores, retailers, producers, and farms. Plaintiffs assert that defendants violated the DTPA by allegedly demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Plaintiffs request certification of a class of all consumers who purchased eggs in Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled by any of the defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Company and other defendants from selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages in the amount of $ 10,000 250,000 each violation impacting anyone over 65 years old. On December 1, 2020, the Company and certain other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike, and the motion to dismiss and related proceedings were referred to a United States magistrate judge. On July 14, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to the court that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 20, 2021, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. On July 13, 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside or amend the judgment to amend their complaint.
On March 15, 2022, plaintiffs filed a second suit against the Company and several defendants in Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-246, in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division alleging the same assertions as laid out in the first complaint. On August 12, 2022, the Company and other defendants in the case filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ class action complaint. On January 9, 2023, the court entered an order and final judgement granting the Company’s motion to On February 8, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 23-50112. The parties filed their respective appellate briefs, but the court has not ruled on these submissions. Management believes the risk of material loss related to both matters 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 the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict noted below and 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 and the other defendants are discussing apportionment, and 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 Company 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 the retired Tenth Circuit Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha. On October 26, 2023, the parties filed separate status reports informing the court that the mediation was unsuccessful. Also on October 26, 2023, the defendants filed a post-trial motion to dismiss and supporting brief arguing that the case should be dismissed due to the state record before the court, the resulting mootness of the case, and violation of due process. On November 10, 2023, the State of Oklahoma filed its response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on November 17, 2023, the defendants filed their reply. The court has not ruled on the motion. 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 13 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 motion to dismiss before the court, 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.
|