Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 23, 2013
Contingencies	NOTE 17 — CONTINGENCIES Dole is a guarantor of indebtedness of some of its key fruit suppliers and other entities integral to Dole’s operations. At March 23, 2013, guarantees of $5 million consisted primarily of amounts advanced under third-party bank agreements to independent growers that supply Dole with product, all related to Dole’s discontinued operations. Dole has not historically experienced significant losses associated with these guarantees. Dole issues letters of credit and bank guarantees through its 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 March 23, 2013, total letters of credit, bank guarantees and bonds outstanding under these arrangements were $183.2 million, of which $10.4 million related to discontinued operations. 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 $130.7 million of its subsidiaries’ obligations to their suppliers and other third parties as of March 23, 2013, of which $22.4 million related to discontinued operations. 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. The consummation of the sale transaction is considered a change of control under the change of control agreements. During the first quarter of 2013, Dole recorded an additional $5.3 million of expense, bringing the total accrual for the change of control arrangements to $29.7 million at March 23, 2013. 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 196 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 81 labor cases pending in Costa Rica under that country’s national insurance program. Of the 196 lawsuits, 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 second quarter of 2013. The remaining lawsuits are pending in Latin America and the Philippines. Claimed damages in DBCP cases worldwide total approximately $36 billion, with lawsuits in Nicaragua representing approximately 85% 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, 165 cases are currently filed (of which 13 are active) in various courts throughout the country, all but three of which were brought pursuant to Law 364, 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. Twenty-five cases have resulted in judgments in Nicaragua: $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. 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. 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 has been operating successfully since its inception, and 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. Dole believes there is no reliable scientific basis for alleged injuries from the agricultural field application of DBCP. Nevertheless, Dole is looking to resolve all DBCP litigation and claims once and for all. 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, neither the pending lawsuits and claims nor their resolution are 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. On March 14, 2013, the General Court issued a judgment affirming the EC’s Decision. Dole has fully provided for the results of this decision - $42.4 million (of which $8.7 million related to interest expense) was recorded in the first quarter of 2013, in addition to the $30 million (of which $4 million related to the interest expense and $10 million was applied to the provisional payment made in 2009) that was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2012. Dole strongly believes that the European competition laws were not violated and will appeal the judgment to the EU Court of Justice by the May 27, 2013 deadline. Dole made an initial $10 million (€7.6 million) provisional payment towards the €45.6 million fine on January 22, 2009. To appeal the fine to the General Court, Dole was required to account for the remaining balance of the fine by either paying the balance in full, providing a bank guarantee for the balance plus interest (the fine carries interest of 6.15%, which is accrued from January 23, 2009), or a combination of the two. As part of its appeal to the General Court, Dole provided a bank guaranty for the balance remaining after its $10 million payment. The bank guaranty renews annually while it is in place and is backed by a letter of credit that carries interest of 2.375%. Before appealing to the Court of Justice, Dole must again account for the remaining balance of the fine plus interest, by either paying the balance in full, continuing the bank guarantee, or a combination. If the Court of Justice fully agrees with Dole’s appeal, Dole will be entitled to the return of all monies paid, plus interest excluding interest on the letter of credit. It is anticipated that the Court of Justice appeal process will take approximately one year. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on Dole’s financial position or results of operations. 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 are discussing the terms and conditions of a final resolution of the 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 ultra-hazardous activity. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water 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. Dole has had no further requests from the Water Board and is not involved in the cleanup and abatement required by the Water Board’s order to Shell.

NOTE 17 — CONTINGENCIES

Dole is a guarantor of indebtedness of some of its key fruit suppliers and other entities integral to Dole’s operations. At March 23, 2013, guarantees of $5 million consisted primarily of amounts advanced under third-party bank agreements to independent growers that supply Dole with product, all related to Dole’s discontinued operations. Dole has not historically experienced significant losses associated with these guarantees.

Dole issues letters of credit and bank guarantees through its 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 March 23, 2013, total letters of credit, bank guarantees and bonds outstanding under these arrangements were $183.2 million, of which $10.4 million related to discontinued operations.

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 $130.7 million of its subsidiaries’ obligations to their suppliers and other third parties as of March 23, 2013, of which $22.4 million related to discontinued operations.

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. The consummation of the sale transaction is considered a change of control under the change of control agreements. During the first quarter of 2013, Dole recorded an additional $5.3 million of expense, bringing the total accrual for the change of control arrangements to $29.7 million at March 23, 2013.

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 196 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 81 labor cases pending in Costa Rica under that country’s national insurance program.

Of the 196 lawsuits, 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 second quarter of 2013. The remaining lawsuits are pending in Latin America and the Philippines. Claimed damages in DBCP cases worldwide total approximately $36 billion, with lawsuits in Nicaragua representing approximately 85% 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, 165 cases are currently filed (of which 13 are active) in various courts throughout the country, all but three of which were brought pursuant to Law 364, 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. Twenty-five cases have resulted in judgments in Nicaragua: $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.

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.

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 has been operating successfully since its inception, and 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. Dole believes there is no reliable scientific basis for alleged injuries from the agricultural field application of DBCP. Nevertheless, Dole is looking to resolve all DBCP litigation and claims once and for all. 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, neither the pending lawsuits and claims nor their resolution are 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. On March 14, 2013, the General Court issued a judgment affirming the EC’s Decision. Dole has fully provided for the results of this decision - $42.4 million (of which $8.7 million related to interest expense) was recorded in the first quarter of 2013, in addition to the $30 million (of which $4 million related to the interest expense and $10 million was applied to the provisional payment made in 2009) that was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2012. Dole strongly believes that the European competition laws were not violated and will appeal the judgment to the EU Court of Justice by the May 27, 2013 deadline.

Dole made an initial $10 million (€7.6 million) provisional payment towards the €45.6 million fine on January 22, 2009. To appeal the fine to the General Court, Dole was required to account for the remaining balance of the fine by either paying the balance in full, providing a bank guarantee for the balance plus interest (the fine carries interest of 6.15%, which is accrued from January 23, 2009), or a combination of the two. As part of its appeal to the General Court, Dole provided a bank guaranty for the balance remaining after its $10 million payment. The bank guaranty renews annually while it is in place and is backed by a letter of credit that carries interest of 2.375%. Before appealing to the Court of Justice, Dole must again account for the remaining balance of the fine plus interest, by either paying the balance in full, continuing the bank guarantee, or a combination. If the Court of Justice fully agrees with Dole’s appeal, Dole will be entitled to the return of all monies paid, plus interest excluding interest on the letter of credit. It is anticipated that the Court of Justice appeal process will take approximately one year.

In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on Dole’s financial position or results of operations.

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 are discussing the terms and conditions of a final resolution of the 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 ultra-hazardous activity. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water 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. Dole has had no further requests from the Water Board and is not involved in the cleanup and abatement required by the Water Board’s order to Shell.