Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The company had an accrual of $3 million, $3 million and $11 million related to contingencies and legal proceedings in Europe at each of June 30, 2012, December 31, 2011, and June 30, 2011 respectively. The company also had an accrual, including accrued interest, in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet of $7 million at June 30, 2011, related to the final payment in a 2007 plea agreement. While other contingent liabilities described below may be material to the financial statements, the company has determined that losses in these matters are not probable and has not accrued any other amounts. Regardless of their outcomes, the company has paid, and will likely continue to incur, significant legal and other fees to defend itself in these proceedings, which may significantly affect the company's financial statements. COLOMBIA-RELATED MATTERS Tort Lawsuits. Between June 2007 and March 2011, nine lawsuits were filed against the company by Colombian nationals in U.S. federal courts. These lawsuits assert civil tort claims under various state and federal laws, including the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), and the Torture Victim Protection Act ("TVPA") (hereinafter "ATS lawsuits"). The plaintiffs claim to be persons injured, or family members or legal heirs of individuals allegedly killed or injured, by armed groups that received payments from the company's former Colombian subsidiary. The company had voluntarily disclosed these payments to the U.S. Department of Justice as having been made by the subsidiary to protect its employees from risks to their safety if the payments were not made. This self-disclosure led to the company's 2007 plea to one count of Engaging in Transactions with a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist Group without having first obtained a license from the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. The plaintiffs in the ATS lawsuits claim that, as a result of such payments, the company should be held legally responsible for the alleged injuries. All of the ATS lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings ("MDL Proceeding"). The claims in the ATS lawsuits are asserted on behalf of over 4,000 alleged victims. Plaintiffs' counsel have indicated that they may add claims for additional alleged victims. The company also has received requests to participate in mediation in Colombia concerning similar claims, which could be followed by litigation in Colombia. Eight of the ATS lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, with one seeking treble damages and disgorgement of profits without explanation. The other ATS lawsuit contains a specific demand of $10 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages for each of the several hundred alleged victims in that suit. The company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and is defending itself vigorously. The company filed motions to dismiss the ATS lawsuits. Between June 2011 and March 2012, the court issued rulings which dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' ATS claims as well as their claims under U.S. state law, but allowed the plaintiffs to move forward with other ATS claims, TVPA claims, and claims asserted under Colombian law. The company believes it has strong defenses to the remaining claims in the ATS lawsuits. The company filed a motion seeking interlocutory appeal of certain controlling legal questions raised by the court's denial of the company's motions to dismiss the ATS and TVPA claims. In March 2012, the court granted the company's motion for interlocutory appeal, and also certified its ruling dismissing the U.S. state law claims. In April 2012, the company filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit requesting permission to pursue the interlocutory appeal. In addition, the company has filed in the district court a motion to dismiss all of the ATS actions on forum non conveniens ("FNC") grounds. Both the petition to appeal and the FNC motion are pending. In addition to the ATS lawsuits, between March 2008 and March 2011, four tort lawsuits were filed against the company by American citizens who allege that they were kidnapped and held hostage by an armed group in Colombia, or that they are the survivors or the estate of a survivor of American nationals kidnapped and/or killed by the same group in Colombia. The plaintiffs in these cases make claims under the Antiterrorism Act ("ATA") and state tort laws (hereinafter "ATA lawsuits"). These ATA lawsuits have also been centralized in the MDL Proceeding. As with the ATS plaintiffs, the ATA plaintiffs contend that the company is liable because its former Colombian subsidiary provided material support to the armed groups. These ATA lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs and punitive damages. The company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and is defending itself vigorously. The company filed motions to dismiss the ATA lawsuits. In February 2010, the company's motion to dismiss one of the ATA lawsuits was granted in part and denied in part. In March 2012, the company's motions to dismiss the other ATA lawsuits were denied. The company believes it has strong defenses to the remaining claims in the ATA lawsuits. Insurance Recovery. In September 2008, the company filed suit in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio against three of its primary general liability insurers (the "coverage suit") seeking (i) a declaratory judgment with respect to the insurers' obligation to reimburse the company for defense costs that it had incurred (and is continuing to incur) in connection with the defense of the tort claims described above; and (ii) an award of damages for the insurers' breach of their contractual obligation to reimburse the company for defense costs to defend itself in these matters. A fourth primary insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”), was later added to the case. A fifth primary insurer that is not a party to the coverage suit is insolvent. The company reached settlement agreements with three of the primary insurers under which they have paid and will continue to pay a portion of defense costs for each of the underlying tort lawsuits. The case proceeded to trial against National Union. Following the trial and after hearing post-trial motions, the court entered final judgment in the coverage suit in December 2011. The court ruled that the underlying tort lawsuits arise out of a single "occurrence," as that term is defined in National Union's primary policies, and that the occurrence took place in Cincinnati, Ohio, which is within the "coverage territory" of National Union's primary policies. The court ruled that National Union has a duty to reimburse the company for its reasonable defense costs paid in connection with each of the underlying tort lawsuits that includes allegations of bodily injury or property damage during the period of National Union's primary policies and that were not already paid by other insurers, plus prejudgment interest on defense costs not paid by National Union when due. The court ruled that the defense costs incurred by the company in connection with the underlying tort lawsuits and that were the subject of trial - with certain limited exceptions related to media-related activity - were reasonable. The court also ruled that National Union has no legal right to contribution from the insurers who entered partial settlements with the company. Further, the court ruled that the June 2011 decision in the underlying tort cases, which dismissed various claims asserted under the ATS, state law, and Colombian law, including negligence claims, did not terminate National Union's duty to reimburse the company. In January 2012, National Union filed a notice of appeal to the First District Court of Appeals in Ohio. Nevertheless, National Union has paid, and is continuing to pay, the defense costs of the company as ordered by the court, while reserving the right to attempt to obtain reimbursement of these payments if its appeal is successful. Through June 30, 2012, the company has received $10 million as expense reimbursement from National Union, which is being deferred in "Other liabilities" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet pending resolution of the appeal process. With the exception of the defense costs that, as described above, three of the company's primary insurers have agreed to pay under partial settlement agreements, there can be no assurance that any claims under the applicable policies will result in insurance recoveries. If National Union ultimately prevails in its appeals, we may be required to reimburse advances received from National Union for defense costs. Colombia Investigation. The Colombian Attorney General's Office has been conducting an investigation into payments made by companies in the banana industry to paramilitary groups in Colombia. Included within the scope of the investigation are the payments that were the subject of the company's 2007 plea in the United States. In March 2012, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation issued a decision which concluded that Chiquita's former Colombian subsidiary had made payments in response to extortion demands and that the payments were not illegal under Colombian law. Based on these findings, the prosecutor closed the investigation. The prosecutor's decision has been appealed and may be reconsidered, amended or overturned. The company believes that it has at all times complied with Colombian law. ITALIAN CUSTOMS AND TAX CASES 1998-2000 Cases. In October 2004, the company's Italian subsidiary, Chiquita Italia, received the first of several notices from various customs authorities in Italy stating that it is potentially liable for additional duties and taxes on the import of bananas by Socoba S.r.l. ("Socoba") from 1998 to 2000 for sale to Chiquita Italia. The customs authorities claim that (i) the amounts are due because these bananas were imported with licenses (purportedly issued by Spain) that were subsequently determined to have been forged and (ii) Chiquita Italia should be jointly liable with Socoba because (a) Socoba was controlled by a former general manager of Chiquita Italia and (b) the import transactions benefited Chiquita Italia, which arranged for Socoba to purchase the bananas from another Chiquita subsidiary and, after customs clearance, sell them to Chiquita Italia. Chiquita Italia is contesting these claims, principally on the basis of its good faith belief at the time the import licenses were obtained and used that they were valid. Of the original notices, civil customs proceedings in an aggregate amount of €14 million ($18 million) plus interest were ultimately brought and are now pending against Chiquita Italia in four Italian jurisdictions, Genoa, Trento, Aosta and Alessandria (for €7 million, €5 million, €2 million, and €0.4 million, respectively, plus interest). In the Genoa case, Chiquita Italia won at the trial level, lost on appeal, and appealed to the Court of Cassation, the highest level of appeal in Italy, where the case is pending. In the Trento case, Chiquita Italia lost at the trial level and has lost at the initial appeal level in a decision published in February 2012 and has appealed this decision to the Court of Cassation. In the Aosta case, Chiquita Italia lost at the trial level in a decision also published in February 2012 and intends to appeal this decision. In the Alessandria case, Chiquita Italia lost at the trial level, and the case was stayed pending a ruling in a separate case in Rome. The Rome case was brought by Socoba (and Chiquita Italia intervened voluntarily) on the issue of whether the forged Spanish licenses used by Socoba should be regarded as genuine in view of the apparent inability to distinguish between genuine and forged licenses. In an October 2010 decision, the Rome trial court rejected Socoba's claim that the licenses should be considered genuine on the basis that Socoba had not sufficiently demonstrated how similar the forged licenses were to genuine Spanish licenses. Socoba has appealed this decision. In an unrelated case addressing similar forged Spanish licenses used in Belgium, the EU Commission has ruled that these types of licenses were such good forgeries that they needed to be treated as genuine, and Chiquita Italia has brought this decision to the attention of the customs authorities in Genoa and Alessandria to seek relief in relation to the pending customs case. The Genoa customs authorities declined to give the benefit of the decision to Chiquita Italia. Chiquita Italia intends to appeal this Genoa decision to the tax court. The Alessandria customs authorities have so far declined to address the request. Under Italian law, the amounts claimed in the Trento, Alessandria and Genoa cases have become due and payable notwithstanding the pending appeals. Chiquita Italia deposited €7 million ($9 million), including interest, in the Trento and Alessandria cases in 36 monthly installments which were completed in March 2012. In the Genoa case, Chiquita Italia expects to make deposit payments including interest totaling €8 million ($11 million) in monthly installments beginning in August 2012 through 2018. Deposits made in these cases are deferred in "Investments and other assets, net" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets pending resolution of the appeals process. If Chiquita Italia ultimately prevails in its appeals, all amounts deposited will be reimbursed with interest. 2004-2005 Cases. In 2008, Chiquita Italia was required to provide documents and information to the Italian fiscal police in connection with a criminal investigation into imports of bananas by Chiquita Italia during 2004 through 2005, and the payment of customs duties on these imports. The focus of the investigation was an importation process whereby Chiquita sold some of its bananas to holders of import licenses who imported the bananas and resold them to Chiquita Italia (indirect import challenge), a practice the company believes was legitimate under both Italian and EU law and was widely accepted by authorities across the EU and by the EC. The Italian prosecutors are pursuing this matter with respect to 2005 only. If criminal liability is ultimately determined, Chiquita Italia could be civilly liable for damages, including applicable duties, taxes and penalties. Tax authorities have issued assessment notices totaling €6 million ($8 million) for 2004 and €5 million ($6 million) for 2005 plus, in each case, interest and penalties. Chiquita Italia appealed these assessments to the first level Rome tax court and, in June 2011, the court rejected Chiquita Italia's appeal for 2004. Chiquita Italia has appealed this decision. Separately, customs authorities have assessed a total of €18 million ($22 million) plus interest for these 2004 and 2005 cases. Chiquita Italia's appeals of these assessments to the first level Rome tax court and the regional court were rejected. Chiquita Italia intends to appeal this decision to the Court of Cassation, the highest level of appeal in Italy. In each case, Chiquita Italia has received payment notifications from the tax and customs authorities and began making deposit payments for assessed duties in installments to the customs authorities in September 2011 and assessed tax in installments to the tax authorities in March 2012. Chiquita Italia is making deposit payments in monthly installments on these tax and customs cases through 2018; annual deposit payments under these installment plans total €6 million ($7 million), including interest. Deposits made under these cases are deferred in "Investments and other assets, net" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets pending resolution of the appeals process. If Chiquita Italia ultimately prevails in its appeals, all amounts deposited will be reimbursed with interest. The fiscal police investigation also challenged the involvement of a Chiquita entity incorporated in Bermuda in the sale of bananas directly to Chiquita Italia (direct import challenge), as a result of which the tax authorities claimed additional taxes of €13 million ($16 million) for 2004 and €19 million ($25 million) for 2005, plus interest and penalties. In order to avoid a long and costly tax dispute, in April 2011, Chiquita Italia reached an agreement in principle with the Italian tax authorities to settle the dispute and recorded expense for the settlements at that time. Under the settlement, the tax authorities agreed that the Bermuda corporation's involvement in the importation of bananas was appropriate and Chiquita Italia agreed to an adjustment to the intercompany price paid by Chiquita Italia for the imported bananas it purchased from this company, resulting in a higher income tax liability for those years. Chiquita Italia paid a settlement of €3 million ($4 million) of additional income tax for 2004 and 2005, including interest and penalties, which was significantly below the amounts originally claimed. The portion of the settlement for 2005 is still subject to approval by the Rome tax court; approval is expected in 2012. As part of the settlement, Chiquita Italia also agreed to a pricing adjustment for its intercompany purchases of bananas for the years 2006 through 2009, resulting in payments in June and July 2011 of €2 million ($3 million) of additional tax and interest to fully settle those years. The indirect import challenge described above is not part of the settlement. Chiquita Italia continues to believe that it acted properly and that all the transactions for which it has received assessment notices were legitimate and reported appropriately, and, aside from those issues already settled, continues to vigorously defend the transactions at issue. CONSUMPTION TAX REFUNDS The company has and has had several open cases seeking the refund of certain consumption taxes paid between 1980 and 1990 in various Italian jurisdictions. As gain contingencies, these refunds and any related interest are recognized when realized and all gain contingencies have been removed. In January 2012, the company received €20 million ($26 million) related to a favorable decision from a court in Salerno, Italy. The claim is not considered resolved or realized, as the decision has been appealed to a higher court. Consequently, the receipt of cash will be deferred in "Other liabilities" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Decisions in one jurisdiction have no binding effect on pending claims in other jurisdictions and all unresolved claims may take years to resolve. If the Company were to lose on appeal, it may be required to repay the consumption tax refunds received.

Commitments and Contingencies

The company had an accrual of $3 million, $3 million and $11 million related to contingencies and legal proceedings in Europe at each of June 30, 2012, December 31, 2011, and June 30, 2011 respectively. The company also had an accrual, including accrued interest, in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet of $7 million at June 30, 2011, related to the final payment in a 2007 plea agreement. While other contingent liabilities described below may be material to the financial statements, the company has determined that losses in these matters are not probable and has not accrued any other amounts. Regardless of their outcomes, the company has paid, and will likely continue to incur, significant legal and other fees to defend itself in these proceedings, which may significantly affect the company's financial statements.

COLOMBIA-RELATED MATTERS

Tort Lawsuits. Between June 2007 and March 2011, nine lawsuits were filed against the company by Colombian nationals in U.S. federal courts. These lawsuits assert civil tort claims under various state and federal laws, including the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), and the Torture Victim Protection Act ("TVPA") (hereinafter "ATS lawsuits"). The plaintiffs claim to be persons injured, or family members or legal heirs of individuals allegedly killed or injured, by armed groups that received payments from the company's former Colombian subsidiary. The company had voluntarily disclosed these payments to the U.S. Department of Justice as having been made by the subsidiary to protect its employees from risks to their safety if the payments were not made. This self-disclosure led to the company's 2007 plea to one count of Engaging in Transactions with a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist Group without having first obtained a license from the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. The plaintiffs in the ATS lawsuits claim that, as a result of such payments, the company should be held legally responsible for the alleged injuries. All of the ATS lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings ("MDL Proceeding").

The claims in the ATS lawsuits are asserted on behalf of over 4,000 alleged victims. Plaintiffs' counsel have indicated that they may add claims for additional alleged victims. The company also has received requests to participate in mediation in Colombia concerning similar claims, which could be followed by litigation in Colombia. Eight of the ATS lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, with one seeking treble damages and disgorgement of profits without explanation. The other ATS lawsuit contains a specific demand of $10 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages for each of the several hundred alleged victims in that suit. The company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and is defending itself vigorously.

The company filed motions to dismiss the ATS lawsuits. Between June 2011 and March 2012, the court issued rulings which dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' ATS claims as well as their claims under U.S. state law, but allowed the plaintiffs to move forward with other ATS claims, TVPA claims, and claims asserted under Colombian law. The company believes it has strong defenses to the remaining claims in the ATS lawsuits. The company filed a motion seeking interlocutory appeal of certain controlling legal questions raised by the court's denial of the company's motions to dismiss the ATS and TVPA claims. In March 2012, the court granted the company's motion for interlocutory appeal, and also certified its ruling dismissing the U.S. state law claims. In April 2012, the company filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit requesting permission to pursue the interlocutory appeal. In addition, the company has filed in the district court a motion to dismiss all of the ATS actions on forum non conveniens ("FNC") grounds. Both the petition to appeal and the FNC motion are pending.

In addition to the ATS lawsuits, between March 2008 and March 2011, four tort lawsuits were filed against the company by American citizens who allege that they were kidnapped and held hostage by an armed group in Colombia, or that they are the survivors or the estate of a survivor of American nationals kidnapped and/or killed by the same group in Colombia. The plaintiffs in these cases make claims under the Antiterrorism Act ("ATA") and state tort laws (hereinafter "ATA lawsuits"). These ATA lawsuits have also been centralized in the MDL Proceeding. As with the ATS plaintiffs, the ATA plaintiffs contend that the company is liable because its former Colombian subsidiary provided material support to the armed groups. These ATA lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs and punitive damages. The company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and is defending itself vigorously.

The company filed motions to dismiss the ATA lawsuits. In February 2010, the company's motion to dismiss one of the ATA lawsuits was granted in part and denied in part. In March 2012, the company's motions to dismiss the other ATA lawsuits were denied. The company believes it has strong defenses to the remaining claims in the ATA lawsuits.

Insurance Recovery. In September 2008, the company filed suit in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio against three of its primary general liability insurers (the "coverage suit") seeking (i) a declaratory judgment with respect to the insurers' obligation to reimburse the company for defense costs that it had incurred (and is continuing to incur) in connection with the defense of the tort claims described above; and (ii) an award of damages for the insurers' breach of their contractual obligation to reimburse the company for defense costs to defend itself in these matters. A fourth primary insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”), was later added to the case. A fifth primary insurer that is not a party to the coverage suit is insolvent. The company reached settlement agreements with three of the primary insurers under which they have paid and will continue to pay a portion of defense costs for each of the underlying tort lawsuits. The case proceeded to trial against National Union.

Following the trial and after hearing post-trial motions, the court entered final judgment in the coverage suit in December 2011. The court ruled that the underlying tort lawsuits arise out of a single "occurrence," as that term is defined in National Union's primary policies, and that the occurrence took place in Cincinnati, Ohio, which is within the "coverage territory" of National Union's primary policies. The court ruled that National Union has a duty to reimburse the company for its reasonable defense costs paid in connection with each of the underlying tort lawsuits that includes allegations of bodily injury or property damage during the period of National Union's primary policies and that were not already paid by other insurers, plus prejudgment interest on defense costs not paid by National Union when due. The court ruled that the defense costs incurred by the company in connection with the underlying tort lawsuits and that were the subject of trial - with certain limited exceptions related to media-related activity - were reasonable. The court also ruled that National Union has no legal right to contribution from the insurers who entered partial settlements with the company. Further, the court ruled that the June 2011 decision in the underlying tort cases, which dismissed various claims asserted under the ATS, state law, and Colombian law, including negligence claims, did not terminate National Union's duty to reimburse the company.

In January 2012, National Union filed a notice of appeal to the First District Court of Appeals in Ohio. Nevertheless, National Union has paid, and is continuing to pay, the defense costs of the company as ordered by the court, while reserving the right to attempt to obtain reimbursement of these payments if its appeal is successful. Through June 30, 2012, the company has received $10 million as expense reimbursement from National Union, which is being deferred in "Other liabilities" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet pending resolution of the appeal process. With the exception of the defense costs that, as described above, three of the company's primary insurers have agreed to pay under partial settlement agreements, there can be no assurance that any claims under the applicable policies will result in insurance recoveries. If National Union ultimately prevails in its appeals, we may be required to reimburse advances received from National Union for defense costs.

Colombia Investigation. The Colombian Attorney General's Office has been conducting an investigation into payments made by companies in the banana industry to paramilitary groups in Colombia. Included within the scope of the investigation are the payments that were the subject of the company's 2007 plea in the United States. In March 2012, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation issued a decision which concluded that Chiquita's former Colombian subsidiary had made payments in response to extortion demands and that the payments were not illegal under Colombian law. Based on these findings, the prosecutor closed the investigation. The prosecutor's decision has been appealed and may be reconsidered, amended or overturned. The company believes that it has at all times complied with Colombian law.

ITALIAN CUSTOMS AND TAX CASES

1998-2000 Cases. In October 2004, the company's Italian subsidiary, Chiquita Italia, received the first of several notices from various customs authorities in Italy stating that it is potentially liable for additional duties and taxes on the import of bananas by Socoba S.r.l. ("Socoba") from 1998 to 2000 for sale to Chiquita Italia. The customs authorities claim that (i) the amounts are due because these bananas were imported with licenses (purportedly issued by Spain) that were subsequently determined to have been forged and (ii) Chiquita Italia should be jointly liable with Socoba because (a) Socoba was controlled by a former general manager of Chiquita Italia and (b) the import transactions benefited Chiquita Italia, which arranged for Socoba to purchase the bananas from another Chiquita subsidiary and, after customs clearance, sell them to Chiquita Italia. Chiquita Italia is contesting these claims, principally on the basis of its good faith belief at the time the import licenses were obtained and used that they were valid.

Of the original notices, civil customs proceedings in an aggregate amount of €14 million ($18 million) plus interest were ultimately brought and are now pending against Chiquita Italia in four Italian jurisdictions, Genoa, Trento, Aosta and Alessandria (for €7 million, €5 million, €2 million, and €0.4 million, respectively, plus interest). In the Genoa case, Chiquita Italia won at the trial level, lost on appeal, and appealed to the Court of Cassation, the highest level of appeal in Italy, where the case is pending. In the Trento case, Chiquita Italia lost at the trial level and has lost at the initial appeal level in a decision published in February 2012 and has appealed this decision to the Court of Cassation. In the Aosta case, Chiquita Italia lost at the trial level in a decision also published in February 2012 and intends to appeal this decision. In the Alessandria case, Chiquita Italia lost at the trial level, and the case was stayed pending a ruling in a separate case in Rome. The Rome case was brought by Socoba (and Chiquita Italia intervened voluntarily) on the issue of whether the forged Spanish licenses used by Socoba should be regarded as genuine in view of the apparent inability to distinguish between genuine and forged licenses. In an October 2010 decision, the Rome trial court rejected Socoba's claim that the licenses should be considered genuine on the basis that Socoba had not sufficiently demonstrated how similar the forged licenses were to genuine Spanish licenses. Socoba has appealed this decision. In an unrelated case addressing similar forged Spanish licenses used in Belgium, the EU Commission has ruled that these types of licenses were such good forgeries that they needed to be treated as genuine, and Chiquita Italia has brought this decision to the attention of the customs authorities in Genoa and Alessandria to seek relief in relation to the pending customs case. The Genoa customs authorities declined to give the benefit of the decision to Chiquita Italia. Chiquita Italia intends to appeal this Genoa decision to the tax court. The Alessandria customs authorities have so far declined to address the request.

Under Italian law, the amounts claimed in the Trento, Alessandria and Genoa cases have become due and payable notwithstanding the pending appeals. Chiquita Italia deposited €7 million ($9 million), including interest, in the Trento and Alessandria cases in 36 monthly installments which were completed in March 2012. In the Genoa case, Chiquita Italia expects to make deposit payments including interest totaling €8 million ($11 million) in monthly installments beginning in August 2012 through 2018. Deposits made in these cases are deferred in "Investments and other assets, net" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets pending resolution of the appeals process. If Chiquita Italia ultimately prevails in its appeals, all amounts deposited will be reimbursed with interest.

2004-2005 Cases. In 2008, Chiquita Italia was required to provide documents and information to the Italian fiscal police in connection with a criminal investigation into imports of bananas by Chiquita Italia during 2004 through 2005, and the payment of customs duties on these imports. The focus of the investigation was an importation process whereby Chiquita sold some of its bananas to holders of import licenses who imported the bananas and resold them to Chiquita Italia (indirect import challenge), a practice the company believes was legitimate under both Italian and EU law and was widely accepted by authorities across the EU and by the EC. The Italian prosecutors are pursuing this matter with respect to 2005 only. If criminal liability is ultimately determined, Chiquita Italia could be civilly liable for damages, including applicable duties, taxes and penalties.

Tax authorities have issued assessment notices totaling €6 million ($8 million) for 2004 and €5 million ($6 million) for 2005 plus, in each case, interest and penalties. Chiquita Italia appealed these assessments to the first level Rome tax court and, in June 2011, the court rejected Chiquita Italia's appeal for 2004. Chiquita Italia has appealed this decision. Separately, customs authorities have assessed a total of €18 million ($22 million) plus interest for these 2004 and 2005 cases. Chiquita Italia's appeals of these assessments to the first level Rome tax court and the regional court were rejected. Chiquita Italia intends to appeal this decision to the Court of Cassation, the highest level of appeal in Italy. In each case, Chiquita Italia has received payment notifications from the tax and customs authorities and began making deposit payments for assessed duties in installments to the customs authorities in September 2011 and assessed tax in installments to the tax authorities in March 2012. Chiquita Italia is making deposit payments in monthly installments on these tax and customs cases through 2018; annual deposit payments under these installment plans total €6 million ($7 million), including interest. Deposits made under these cases are deferred in "Investments and other assets, net" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets pending resolution of the appeals process. If Chiquita Italia ultimately prevails in its appeals, all amounts deposited will be reimbursed with interest.

The fiscal police investigation also challenged the involvement of a Chiquita entity incorporated in Bermuda in the sale of bananas directly to Chiquita Italia (direct import challenge), as a result of which the tax authorities claimed additional taxes of €13 million ($16 million) for 2004 and €19 million ($25 million) for 2005, plus interest and penalties. In order to avoid a long and costly tax dispute, in April 2011, Chiquita Italia reached an agreement in principle with the Italian tax authorities to settle the dispute and recorded expense for the settlements at that time. Under the settlement, the tax authorities agreed that the Bermuda corporation's involvement in the importation of bananas was appropriate and Chiquita Italia agreed to an adjustment to the intercompany price paid by Chiquita Italia for the imported bananas it purchased from this company, resulting in a higher income tax liability for those years. Chiquita Italia paid a settlement of €3 million ($4 million) of additional income tax for 2004 and 2005, including interest and penalties, which was significantly below the amounts originally claimed. The portion of the settlement for 2005 is still subject to approval by the Rome tax court; approval is expected in 2012. As part of the settlement, Chiquita Italia also agreed to a pricing adjustment for its intercompany purchases of bananas for the years 2006 through 2009, resulting in payments in June and July 2011 of €2 million ($3 million) of additional tax and interest to fully settle those years. The indirect import challenge described above is not part of the settlement.

Chiquita Italia continues to believe that it acted properly and that all the transactions for which it has received assessment notices were legitimate and reported appropriately, and, aside from those issues already settled, continues to vigorously defend the transactions at issue.

CONSUMPTION TAX REFUNDS

The company has and has had several open cases seeking the refund of certain consumption taxes paid between 1980 and 1990 in various Italian jurisdictions. As gain contingencies, these refunds and any related interest are recognized when realized and all gain contingencies have been removed. In January 2012, the company received €20 million ($26 million) related to a favorable decision from a court in Salerno, Italy. The claim is not considered resolved or realized, as the decision has been appealed to a higher court. Consequently, the receipt of cash will be deferred in "Other liabilities" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Decisions in one jurisdiction have no binding effect on pending claims in other jurisdictions and all unresolved claims may take years to resolve. If the Company were to lose on appeal, it may be required to repay the consumption tax refunds received.