NOTE 19: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

We lease equipment, properties and certain farms for which total rentals approximated $183 million, $188 million and $175 million, respectively, in fiscal 2011, 2010 and 2009. Most leases have initial terms 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 October 1, 2011, were:


	in millions
2012		$95
2013		63
2014		39
2015		19
2016		12
2017 and beyond		54
Total		$282

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 October 1, 2011, was $76 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 $50 million, of which $43 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 October 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, 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 October 1, 2011, was approximately $220 million. The total receivables under these programs were $28 million and $51 million at October 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, respectively, and are included, net of allowance for uncollectible amounts, in Other Assets 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 $10 million and $15 million at October 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, respectively.

Additionally, we enter into future purchase commitments for various items, such as grains, livestock contracts and fixed grower fees. At October 1, 2011, these commitments totaled:


	in millions
2012		$886
2013		63
2014		18
2015		16
2016		15
2017 and beyond		61
Total		$1,059

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.

Several private lawsuits are pending against us alleging that we failed to compensate poultry plant employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These lawsuits include DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (DeAsencio), filed on August 22, 2000, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This matter involves similar allegations 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, obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas. 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, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 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. The new trial date has not been set.

The other private lawsuits referred to above are Sheila Ackles, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (N. Dist. Alabama, October 23, 2006); McCluster, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M. Dist. Georgia, December 11, 2006); Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, December 21, 2006); Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. and Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, December 22, 2006); Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (S.D. Mississippi, February 9, 2007); Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Oklahoma, March 1, 2007); Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Arkansas, March 2, 2007); Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, March 5, 2007); Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, May 23, 2007) (the Williams Case). Similar to DeAsencio, each of these matters involves allegations 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, obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek or have sought to act as 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. On April 6, 2007, we filed a motion for transfer of the above named actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which was granted on August 17, 2007. These cases and five other cases subsequently filed involving the same allegations (i.e., Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Tennessee, January 30, 2008); Maldonado, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Tennessee, January 31, 2008); White, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Texas, February 1, 2008); Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Missouri, February 2, 2008); and Leak, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. North Carolina, February 6, 2008)), were transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Georgia, In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (MDL Proceedings). On September 2, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion with the court seeking its approval of the settlement. The court approved the settlement on September 15, 2011, and Tyson will pay at least $12.25 million but no more than $17.5 million in back pay and damages to eligible class members. The settlement agreement provides a process for identifying and certifying eligible class members, which includes a 75-day notice period for certain class members to become eligible for payment under the settlement. In addition, the settlement agreement provides that plaintiffs' attorneys must file an application for fees with the court but that no more than $14.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs will be paid. Plaintiffs' attorneys filed their fee application on October 11, 2011.

We have pending twelve separate wage and hour actions involving Tyson Fresh Meats Inc.'s plants located in Lexington, Nebraska (Lopez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., D. Nebraska, June 30, 2006), Garden City and Emporia, 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), 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), Dakota City, Nebraska (Gomez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., D. Nebraska, January 16, 2008), Madison, Nebraska (Acosta, et al. v Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Nebraska, February 29, 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); Council Bluffs, Iowa (Maxwell (f/k/a Salazar), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, April 29, 2008); Logansport, Indiana (Carter, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., N.D. Indiana, April 29, 2008); and Goodlettsville, Tennessee (Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc., and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., M.D. Tennessee, February 6, 2009). 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, a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was entered on March 17, 2011, with respect to the Garden City, Kansas facility. 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, respectively. Plaintiffs' counsel has filed an application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $3,475,422. We contested the application and are currently evaluating our appeal options.

—

A jury trial was held in the Lopez case, which involved the Lexington, NE beef plant, and resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Tyson. Judgment was entered and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, on May 26, 2011. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 16, 2011.

—

A jury trial was held in the Bouaphakeo case, which involved the Storm Lake, Iowa pork plant and resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on September 26, 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 $2,892,379. On October 24, 2011, we renewed our motion for judgment as a matter of law due to a failure of class-wide proof and, in the alternative, for a new trial on damages.

—

The Guyton, Gomez and Acosta cases are scheduled for trials on April 9, 2012, October 15, 2012, and November 13, 2012, respectively.

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, 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 have 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.

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. This complaint was subsequently amended. As amended, the complaint 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.

On May 8, 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of our employees in the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma styled Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (the Armstrong Case). The lawsuit was brought by a group of 52 poultry growers who allege that certain of our live production practices in Oklahoma constitute fraudulent inducement, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, gross negligence, unconscionability, violations of the Oklahoma Business Sales Act, Deceptive Trade Practice violations, violations of the Consumer Protection Act, and conversion, as well as other theories of recovery. The plaintiffs sought damages in an unspecified amount. On October 30, 2009, 20 additional growers represented by the same attorney filed a lawsuit against us in the same court asserting the same or similar claims, which is styled Clardy, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (the Clardy Case). In both of these cases we have denied all allegations of wrongdoing. In June 2009, the plaintiffs in the Armstrong case requested an expedited trial date for a smaller group of plaintiffs they claimed were facing imminent financial peril. The Court ultimately severed a group of 10 plaintiffs from the Armstrong Case, and a trial began on March 15, 2010. There were numerous irregularities and rulings during the trial which we believe to have been legally erroneous and highly prejudicial to our right to a fair trial. On April 1, 2010, the jury returned a verdict against us and one of our employees, and on April 2, 2010, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict against us. After a dispute caused by inconsistencies between the multiple verdict forms completed by the jury and apparent confusion by the jury as to how to complete those verdict forms, the Court entered a final judgment in the amount of $8,655,735. Subsequent to the trial, the presiding judge disqualified from the cases and the Oklahoma Supreme Court appointed a new judge to the cases. The Company filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict. Those motions were denied. The Company has appealed the verdict to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. We filed a motion with the trial court to change venue from McCurtain County on the grounds that the numerous irregularities that occurred during the trial, coupled with the attendant publicity, resulted in community bias which would prevent the Company from receiving a fair trial in McCurtain County. The trial court granted this motion and the case will be transferred to Choctaw County, Oklahoma. We filed another motion, which the trial court also granted, to stay all future trials of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Armstrong Case and the Clardy Case pending the outcome of the appeal of the first trial. We also filed a motion to sever all of the plaintiffs' claims into individual cases, which was heard on January 25, 2010. This motion was denied, but the Court took under advisement the sizes and groupings of plaintiffs in future trials. We believe numerous and substantial legal errors were made by the Court during the trial and that a review of and guidance on these issues by the appellate court could have a substantial impact on the outcome of future trials in the Armstrong Case and the Clardy Case.