Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Contingencies [Abstract]

Contingencies

Note 18 — Contingencies

Dole is a guarantor of indebtedness of some of its key fruit suppliers and other entities integral to Dole’s operations. At December 31, 2011, guarantees of $2.5 million consisted primarily of amounts advanced under third-party bank agreements to independent growers that supply Dole with product. In addition, Dole had restricted cash on deposit at December 31, 2011 of $5.5 million securing the indebtedness of several fruit suppliers. Dole has not historically experienced any significant losses associated with these guarantees.

Dole issues letters of credit and bank guarantees through its ABL revolver and, in addition, separately through major banking institutions. Dole also provides bonds issued by insurance companies. These letters of credit, bank guarantees and insurance company bonds are required by certain regulatory authorities, suppliers and other operating agreements. As of December 31, 2011, total letters of credit, bank guarantees and bonds outstanding under these arrangements were $187 million.

Dole also provides various guarantees, mostly to foreign banks, in the course of its normal business operations to support the borrowings, leases and other obligations of its subsidiaries. Dole guaranteed $165.9 million of its subsidiaries’ obligations to their suppliers and other third parties as of December 31, 2011.

Dole has change of control agreements with certain key executives, under which severance payments and benefits would become payable in the event of specified terminations of employment in connection with a change of control (as defined) of Dole.

Dole is involved from time to time in claims and legal actions incidental to its operations, both as plaintiff and defendant. Dole has established what management currently believes to be adequate reserves for pending legal matters. These reserves are established as part of an ongoing worldwide assessment of claims and legal actions that takes into consideration such items as changes in the pending case load (including resolved and new matters), opinions of legal counsel, individual developments in court proceedings, changes in the law, changes in business focus, changes in the litigation environment, changes in opponent strategy and tactics, new developments as a result of ongoing discovery, and past experience in defending and settling similar claims. In the opinion of management, after consultation with outside counsel, the claims or actions to which Dole is a party are not expected to have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on Dole’s financial position or results of operations.

DBCP Cases:    A significant portion of Dole’s legal exposure relates to lawsuits pending in the United States and in several foreign countries, alleging injury as a result of exposure to the agricultural chemical DBCP (1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane). DBCP was manufactured by several chemical companies including entities of The Dow Chemical Company and Royal Dutch Shell plc and registered by the U.S. government for use on food crops. Dole and other growers applied DBCP on banana farms in Latin America and the Philippines and on pineapple farms in Hawaii. Specific periods of use varied among the different locations. Dole halted all purchases of DBCP, including for use in foreign countries, when the U.S. EPA cancelled the registration of DBCP for use in the United States in 1979. That cancellation was based in part on a 1977 study by a manufacturer which indicated an apparent link between male sterility and exposure to DBCP among factory workers producing the product, as well as early product testing done by the manufacturers showing testicular effects on animals exposed to DBCP. To date, there is no reliable evidence demonstrating that field application of DBCP led to sterility among farm workers, although that claim is made in the pending lawsuits. Nor is there any reliable scientific evidence that DBCP causes any other injuries in humans, although plaintiffs in the various actions assert claims based on cancer, birth defects and other general illnesses.

Currently there are 230 lawsuits, in various stages of proceedings, alleging injury as a result of exposure to DBCP or seeking enforcement of Nicaragua judgments. In addition, there are 20 labor cases pending in Costa Rica under that country’s national insurance program.

On October 3, 2011, Dole signed a definitive settlement agreement with the plaintiff group represented by the Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P., which with full implementation will bring to an end all of their DBCP lawsuits and judgments. Of the 230 lawsuits pending worldwide, the settlement includes four lawsuits in the United States (a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was recently denied in one Provost judgment enforcement action; the plaintiffs holding the underlying judgment are included in the settlement) and 33 lawsuits in Nicaragua, which includes any and all Nicaragua judgments and plaintiff claims associated with Provost & Umphrey. The 33 Nicaragua cases represent approximately $9 billion in claimed damages and, in seven of those cases, judgments totaling $907.5 million. The effectiveness of the settlement is contingent upon the satisfaction of a number of conditions including various court approvals and signed releases from the plaintiff group. There is no assurance that the settlement effectiveness conditions will be satisfied. This settlement is consistent with the position Dole has taken in the past, that it is willing to seek reasonable resolution of pending DBCP litigation. The settlement, if it becomes effective, will not have a material effect on Dole’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Of the 193 lawsuits not included in the Provost & Umphrey settlement, 16 are currently pending in various jurisdictions in the United States. One case in Los Angeles Superior Court, the last remaining lawsuit brought in the United States by Nicaraguan plaintiffs, was dismissed after the Court found that the plaintiffs and their representatives engaged in blatant fraud, witness tampering and active manipulation. On March 11, 2011, the Court issued a final Statement of Decision, followed on March 31, 2011 by a Judgment, that vacates the prior judgment and dismisses all plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that judgment on May 6, 2011, and briefing is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2012.

The remaining lawsuits are pending in Latin America and the Philippines. Claimed damages in DBCP cases worldwide total approximately $45 billion ($36 billion not counting lawsuits included in the Provost & Umphrey settlement), with lawsuits in Nicaragua representing approximately 87% of this amount. Typically, in these cases Dole is a joint defendant with the major DBCP manufacturers. Except as described below, none of these lawsuits has resulted in a verdict or judgment against Dole.

In Nicaragua, 196 cases are currently filed (of which 34 are active) in various courts throughout the country (163 cases not counting lawsuits included in the Provost & Umphrey settlement), all but three of which were brought pursuant to Law 364 (including one new case that was served on November 21, 2011), an October 2000 Nicaraguan statute that contains substantive and procedural provisions that Nicaragua’s Attorney General formally opined are unconstitutional. In October 2003, the Supreme Court of Nicaragua issued an advisory opinion, not connected with any litigation, that Law 364 is constitutional. Thirty-two cases have resulted in judgments in Nicaragua (25 cases not counting lawsuits included in the Provost & Umphrey settlement): $489.4 million (nine cases consolidated with 465 claimants) on December 11, 2002; $82.9 million (one case with 58 claimants) on February 25, 2004; $15.7 million (one case with 20 claimants) on May 25, 2004; $4 million (one case with four claimants) on May 25, 2004; $56.5 million (one case with 72 claimants) on June 14, 2004; $64.8 million (one case with 85 claimants) on June 15, 2004; $27.7 million (one case with 36 claimants) on March 17, 2005; $46.4 million (one case with 62 claimants) on August 20, 2005; $38.4 million (one case with 192 claimants) on November 14, 2007; and $357.7 million (eight cases with 417 claimants) on January 12, 2009, which Dole learned of unofficially. Except for the latest one, Dole has appealed all judgments. Dole will appeal the $357.7 million judgment once it has been served. The two judgments that resulted from seven of the cases filed by Provost & Umphrey, the $809 million judgment dated December 1, 2006 (six cases consolidated with 1,248 claimants) and the $98.5 million judgment dated August 8, 2005 (one case with 150 claimants), are included in the settlement.

In all but one of the active cases where the proceeding has reached the appropriate stage, Dole has sought to have the cases returned to the United States. In all of the cases where Dole’s request to return the case to the United States has been ruled upon, the courts have denied Dole’s request and Dole has appealed those decisions.

On November 10, 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued final judgment in favor of Dole denying recognition and enforcement of the $98.5 million Nicaragua judgment against Dole and another U.S. company. On March 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On March 25, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, agreeing that “the Nicaraguan judgment is not due recognition and enforcement.” On April 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the 11th Circuit, which was denied by the Court on June 28, 2011. On September 26, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 9, 2012. This enforcement action is included in the Provost & Umphrey settlement.

Dole believes that none of the Nicaraguan judgments will be enforceable against any Dole entity in the U.S. or in any other country, because Nicaragua’s Law 364 is unconstitutional and violates international principles of due process. Among other things, Law 364 is an improper “special law” directed at particular parties; it requires defendants to pay large, non-refundable deposits in order to even participate in the litigation; it provides a severely truncated procedural process; it establishes an irrebuttable presumption of causation that is contrary to the evidence and scientific data; and it sets unreasonable minimum damages that must be awarded in every case.

On October 23, 2006, Dole announced that its subsidiary, Standard Fruit de Honduras, S.A., reached an agreement with the Government of Honduras and representatives of Honduran banana workers. This agreement establishes a Worker Program that is intended by the parties to resolve in a fair and equitable manner the claims of male banana workers alleging sterility as a result of exposure to DBCP. The Honduran Worker Program will not have a material effect on Dole’s financial position or results of operations. The official start of the Honduran Worker Program was announced on January 8, 2007. On August 15, 2007, Shell Oil Company was included in the Worker Program.

As to all the DBCP matters, Dole has denied liability and asserted substantial defenses. Although no assurance can be given concerning the outcome of the DBCP cases, in the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel and based on past experience defending and settling DBCP claims, the pending lawsuits are not expected to have a material adverse effect on Dole’s financial position or results of operations.

European Union Antitrust Inquiry:    On October 15, 2008, the European Commission (“EC”) adopted a Decision against Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe OHG and against other unrelated banana companies, finding violations of the European competition (antitrust) laws. The Decision imposes €45.6 million in fines on Dole.

The Decision follows a Statement of Objections, issued by the EC on July 25, 2007, and searches carried out by the EC in June 2005 at certain banana importers and distributors, including two of Dole’s offices.

Dole received the Decision on October 21, 2008 and appealed the Decision to the European General Court in Luxembourg on December 24, 2008. Oral argument on the appeal was held on January 25, 2012.

Dole made an initial $10 million (€7.6 million) provisional payment towards the €45.6 million fine on January 22, 2009, which is classified as other assets, net in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. As agreed with the European Commission (DG Budget), Dole provided the required bank guaranty for the remaining balance of the fine plus interest to the EC by the deadline of April 30, 2009. The bank guaranty renews annually during the appeals process (which may take several years) and carries interest of 6.15% (accrued from January 23, 2009). If the European General Court fully agrees with Dole’s arguments presented in its appeal, Dole will be entitled to the return of all monies paid, plus interest.

Although no assurances can be given, and although there could be a material adverse effect on Dole, Dole believes that it has not violated the European competition laws. No accrual for the Decision has been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements, since Dole cannot determine at this time the amount of probable loss, if any, incurred as a result of the Decision.

Honduran Tax Case:    In 2005, Dole received a tax assessment from Honduras of approximately $137 million (including the claimed tax, penalty, and interest through the date of assessment) relating to the disposition of all of Dole’s interest in Cervecería Hondureña, S.A in 2001. Dole believes the assessment is without merit and filed an appeal with the Honduran tax authorities, which was denied. As a result of the denial in the administrative process, in order to negate the tax assessment, on August 5, 2005, Dole proceeded to the next stage of the appellate process by filing a lawsuit against the Honduran government in the Honduran Administrative Tax Trial Court. The Honduran government sought dismissal of the lawsuit and attachment of assets, which Dole challenged. The Honduran Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Honduran intermediate appellate court that a statutory prerequisite to challenging the tax assessment on the merits is the payment of the tax assessment or the filing of a payment plan with the Honduran courts; Dole has challenged the constitutionality of the statute requiring such payment or payment plan. Dole and the Honduran government have had discussions regarding possible ways to resolve pending lawsuits and tax-related matters. Although no assurance can be given concerning the outcome of this case, in the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, the pending lawsuits and tax-related matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on Dole’s financial position or results of operations.

Former Shell Site:    Shell Oil Company and Dole were sued in several cases filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, beginning in 2009, alleging property damage and personal injury by persons claiming to be current or former residents in the area of a housing development built in the 1960s by a predecessor of what is now a Dole subsidiary, on land that had been owned and used by Shell as a crude oil storage facility for 40 years prior to the housing development. On April 20, 2011, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice, including all claims against Dole. On August 11, 2011, the Court overturned its dismissal in response to plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and permitted the filing of a second amended complaint by plaintiffs. The defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, which have been denied, except that Shell’s motions were granted to dismiss certain property damage claims and certain claims based on the allegation that Shell had engaged in ultrahazardous activity. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board is supervising the cleanup on the former Shell site. On March 11, 2011, the Water Board issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order naming Shell as the Discharger and a Responsible Party, and ordering Shell to assess, monitor, and cleanup and abate the effects of contaminants discharged to soil and groundwater at the site. On April 22, 2011, the Water Board sent Dole a letter requiring Dole to supply information concerning ownership, development and activities of the former Shell site, which Dole did on September 15, 2011.

2010 Arbitration Settlement:    During the third quarter of 2010, Dole, as plaintiff, settled a dispute for $30 million that was the subject of an arbitration proceeding. The dispute involved faulty manufactured containers sold to Dole. The settlement payment was received by Dole during the third quarter of 2010. In connection with the settlement, Dole recorded a $2.7 million non-cash impairment charge related to obsolete containers during the third quarter of 2010. As a result, Dole included $27.3 million as gain on legal settlements during 2010.

2010 Supplier Settlement:    During the fourth quarter of 2010, Dole and a fresh vegetables supplier settled a dispute. Pursuant to the settlement, the supplier paid Dole $5.3 million, which was included as gain on legal settlements during 2010.