CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
May 26, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Litigation Matters We are a party to certain litigation matters relating to our acquisition of Beatrice Company ("Beatrice") in fiscal 1991, including litigation proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of the company. These proceedings include suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("ConAgra Grocery Products") as alleged successor to W. P. Fuller & Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by a predecessor to Beatrice from 1962 until 1967. These lawsuits generally seek damages for personal injury, property damage, economic loss, and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paint, and/or injunctive relief for inspection and abatement. Although decisions favorable to us have been rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, we remain a defendant in active suits in Illinois and California. ConAgra Grocery Products has denied liability in both suits, both on the merits of the claims and on the basis that we do not believe it to be the successor to any liability attributable to W. P. Fuller & Co. The California suit is discussed in the following paragraph. The Illinois suit seeks class-wide relief for reimbursement of costs associated with the testing of lead levels in blood. We do not believe it is probable that we have incurred any liability with respect to the Illinois case, nor is it possible to estimate any potential exposure. In California, a number of cities and counties joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of an alleged public nuisance in the form of lead-based paint potentially present on the interior of residences, regardless of its condition. On September 23, 2013, a trial of the California case concluded in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, and on January 27, 2014, the court entered a judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants ordering the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company appealed the Judgment, and, on November 14, 2017 the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed in part, holding that the defendants were not liable to pay for abatement of homes built after 1950, but affirmed the Judgment as to homes built before 1951. The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court with directions to recalculate the amount of the abatement fund estimated to be necessary to cover the cost of remediating pre-1951 homes, and to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding appointment of a suitable receiver. ConAgra Grocery Products and the other defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the decision, which we believe to be an unprecedented expansion of current California law. On February 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition and declined to review the merits of the case, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. ConAgra Grocery Products and the other defendants sought further review of certain issues from the Supreme Court of the United States, but on October 15, 2018, the Supreme Court declined to review the case. On September 4, 2018, the trial court recalculated its estimate of the amount needed to remediate pre-1951 homes in the plaintiff jurisdictions to be $409.0 million. As of July 10, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, which agreement remains subject to approval by the trial court. Once approved, the action against ConAgra Grocery Products will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement, ConAgra Grocery Products will pay a total of $101.7 million in seven installments to be paid annually from fiscal 2020 through fiscal 2026. ConAgra Grocery Products will further provide a guarantee of up to $15.0 million in the event co-defendant, NL Industries, Inc., defaults on its payment obligations. We have accrued $25.3 million and $74.1 million, within other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities, respectively, for this matter as of May 26, 2019. The extent of insurance coverage is uncertain and the Company's carriers are on notice; however, any possible insurance recovery has not been considered for purposes of determining our liability. We cannot assure that the final resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. We are party to a number of putative class action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson^® oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a settlement in this matter. We are party to matters challenging the Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business. We are party to a number of matters asserting product liability claims against the Company related to certain Pam^® and other cooking spray products. These lawsuits generally seek damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by defects in the design, manufacture, or safety warnings of the cooking spray products. We have put the Company's insurance carriers on notice. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of these or any other legal proceedings, we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business. The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuits assert that the Company's officers made material misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an unrealistically positive assessment of the Company's financial prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle, thus causing the Company's securities to be overvalued prior to the release of the Company's consolidated financial results on December 20, 2018 for the second quarter of fiscal 2019. The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been consolidated, was filed February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In addition, on May 9, 2019, a shareholder filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company against the Company's directors captioned Klein v. Arora, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The shareholder derivative lawsuit asserts harm to the Company due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection with the Pinnacle acquisition. On July 9, 2019, the Company received a stockholder demand under Delaware law to inspect the Company's books and records related to the Board of Directors' review of the Pinnacle business, acquisition, and the Company's public statements related to them. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of these or any other legal proceedings, we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business. Environmental Matters We are a party to certain environmental proceedings relating to our acquisition of Beatrice in fiscal 1991. Such proceedings include proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of Beatrice. The current environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's possible status as a potentially responsible party at approximately 40 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent sites (the "Beatrice sites"). These sites involve locations previously owned or operated by predecessors of Beatrice that used or produced petroleum, pesticides, fertilizers, dyes, inks, solvents, PCBs, acids, lead, sulfur, tannery wastes, and/or other contaminants. Reserves for these Beatrice environmental proceedings have been established based on our best estimate of the undiscounted remediation liabilities, which estimates include evaluation of investigatory studies, extent of required clean-up, the known volumetric contribution of Beatrice and other potentially responsible parties, and its experience in remediating sites. The accrual for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $52.8 million as of May 26, 2019, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was submitted for the Southwest Properties portion of the Wells G&H Superfund site, which is one of the Beatrice sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") issued a Record of Decision (the "ROD") for the Southwest Properties portion of the site on September 29, 2017 and has entered into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to determine final responsibility for implementing the ROD. Guarantees and Other Contingencies We guarantee an obligation of the Lamb Weston business pursuant to a guarantee arrangement that existed prior to the Spinoff and remained in place following completion of the Spinoff until such guarantee obligations is substituted for guarantees issued by Lamb Weston. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, dated as of November 8, 2016 (the "Separation Agreement"), between us and Lamb Weston, this guarantee arrangement is deemed a liability of Lamb Weston that was transferred to Lamb Weston as part of the Spinoff. Accordingly, in the event that we are required to make any payments as a result of this guarantee arrangement, Lamb Weston is obligated to indemnify us for any such liability, reduced by any insurance proceeds received by us, in accordance with the terms of the indemnification provisions under the Separation Agreement. Lamb Weston is a party to an agricultural sublease agreement with a third party for certain farmland through 2020 (subject, at Lamb Weston's option, to extension for two additional five-year periods). Under the terms of the sublease agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make certain rental payments to the sublessor. We have guaranteed the sublessor Lamb Weston's performance and the payment of all amounts (including indemnification obligations) owed by Lamb Weston under the sublease agreement, up to a maximum of $75.0 million. We believe the farmland associated with this sublease agreement is readily marketable for lease to other area farming operators. As such, we believe that any financial exposure to the Company, in the event that we were required to perform under the guarantee, would be largely mitigated. We lease or leased certain office buildings from entities that we have determined to be variable interest entities. The lease agreements with these entities include fixed-price purchase options for the assets being leased. The lease agreements also contain contingent put options (the "lease put options") that allow or allowed the lessors to require us to purchase the buildings at the greater of original construction cost, or fair market value, without a lease agreement in place (the "put price") in certain limited circumstances. As a result of substantial impairment charges related to our divested Private Brands operations, these lease put options became exercisable. We are amortizing the difference between the put price and the estimated fair value (without a lease agreement in place) of the property over the remaining lease term within SG&A expenses. During fiscal 2018, we purchased two buildings that were subject to lease put options and recognized net losses totaling $48.2 million for the early exit of unfavorable lease contracts. During fiscal 2017, one of these lease agreements expired, and we reversed the applicable accrual and recognized a benefit of $6.7 million in SG&A expenses. As of May 26, 2019 and May 27, 2018, there was one remaining leased building subject to a lease put option for which the put option price exceeded the estimated fair value of the property by $8.2 million, of which we had accrued $1.6 million and $1.2 million, respectively. This lease is accounted for as an operating lease, and accordingly, there are no material assets and liabilities, other than the accrued portion of the put price, associated with this entity included in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. We have determined that we do not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of this entity. In making this determination, we have considered, among other items, the terms of the lease agreement, the expected remaining useful life of the asset leased, and the capital structure of the lessor entity. In certain limited situations, we will guarantee an obligation of an unconsolidated entity. We guarantee certain leases resulting from the divestiture of the JM Swank business completed in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. As of May 26, 2019, the remaining terms of these arrangements did not exceed four years and the maximum amount of future payments we have guaranteed was $1.2 million. In addition, we guarantee a lease resulting from an exited facility. As of May 26, 2019, the remaining term of this arrangement did not exceed eight years and the maximum amount of future payments we have guaranteed was $19.1 million. General After taking into account liabilities recognized for all of the foregoing matters, management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity; however, it is reasonably possible that a change of the estimates of any of the foregoing matters may occur in the future and, as noted, the lead paint matter could result in a material final judgment which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.

CONTINGENCIES

Litigation Matters

We are a party to certain litigation matters relating to our acquisition of Beatrice Company ("Beatrice") in fiscal 1991, including litigation proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of the company. These proceedings include suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("ConAgra Grocery Products") as alleged successor to W. P. Fuller & Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by a predecessor to Beatrice from 1962 until 1967. These lawsuits generally seek damages for personal injury, property damage, economic loss, and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paint, and/or injunctive relief for inspection and abatement. Although decisions favorable to us have been rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, we remain a defendant in active suits in Illinois and California. ConAgra Grocery Products has denied liability in both suits, both on the merits of the claims and on the basis that we do not believe it to be the successor to any liability attributable to W. P. Fuller & Co. The California suit is discussed in the following paragraph. The Illinois suit seeks class-wide relief for reimbursement of costs associated with the testing of lead levels in blood. We do not believe it is probable that we have incurred any liability with respect to the Illinois case, nor is it possible to estimate any potential exposure.

In California, a number of cities and counties joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of an alleged public nuisance in the form of lead-based paint potentially present on the interior of residences, regardless of its condition. On September 23, 2013, a trial of the California case concluded in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, and on January 27, 2014, the court entered a judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants ordering the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company appealed the Judgment, and, on November 14, 2017 the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed in part, holding that the defendants were not liable to pay for abatement of homes built after 1950, but affirmed the Judgment as to homes built before 1951. The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court with directions to recalculate the amount of the abatement fund estimated to be necessary to cover the cost of remediating pre-1951 homes, and to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding appointment of a suitable receiver. ConAgra Grocery Products and the other defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the decision, which we believe to be an unprecedented expansion of current California law. On February 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition and declined to review the merits of the case, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. ConAgra Grocery Products and the other defendants sought further review of certain issues from the Supreme Court of the United States, but on October 15, 2018, the Supreme Court declined to review the case. On September 4, 2018, the trial court recalculated its estimate of the amount needed to remediate pre-1951 homes in the plaintiff jurisdictions to be $409.0 million. As of July 10, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, which agreement remains subject to approval by the trial court. Once approved, the action against ConAgra Grocery Products will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement, ConAgra Grocery Products will pay a total of $101.7 million in seven installments to be paid annually from fiscal 2020 through fiscal 2026. ConAgra Grocery Products will further provide a guarantee of up to $15.0 million in the event co-defendant, NL Industries, Inc., defaults on its payment obligations.

We have accrued $25.3 million and $74.1 million, within other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities, respectively, for this matter as of May 26, 2019. The extent of insurance coverage is uncertain and the Company's carriers are on notice; however, any possible insurance recovery has not been considered for purposes of determining our liability. We cannot assure that the final resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

We are party to a number of putative class action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson^® oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a settlement in this matter.

We are party to matters challenging the Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business.

We are party to a number of matters asserting product liability claims against the Company related to certain Pam^® and other cooking spray products. These lawsuits generally seek damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by defects in the design, manufacture, or safety warnings of the cooking spray products. We have put the Company's insurance carriers on notice. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of these or any other legal proceedings, we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business.

The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuits assert that the Company's officers made material misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an unrealistically positive assessment of the Company's financial prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle, thus causing the Company's securities to be overvalued prior to the release of the Company's consolidated financial results on December 20, 2018 for the second quarter of fiscal 2019. The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been consolidated, was filed February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In addition, on May 9, 2019, a shareholder filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company against the Company's directors captioned Klein v. Arora, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The shareholder derivative lawsuit asserts harm to the Company due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection with the Pinnacle acquisition. On July 9, 2019, the Company received a stockholder demand under Delaware law to inspect the Company's books and records related to the Board of Directors' review of the Pinnacle business, acquisition, and the Company's public statements related to them. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of these or any other legal proceedings, we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business.

Environmental Matters

We are a party to certain environmental proceedings relating to our acquisition of Beatrice in fiscal 1991. Such proceedings include proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of Beatrice. The current environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's possible status as a potentially responsible party at approximately 40 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent sites (the "Beatrice sites"). These sites involve locations previously owned or operated by predecessors of Beatrice that used or produced petroleum, pesticides, fertilizers, dyes, inks, solvents, PCBs, acids, lead, sulfur, tannery wastes, and/or other contaminants. Reserves for these Beatrice environmental proceedings have been established based on our best estimate of the undiscounted remediation liabilities, which estimates include evaluation of investigatory studies, extent of required clean-up, the known volumetric contribution of Beatrice and other potentially responsible parties, and its experience in remediating sites. The accrual for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $52.8 million as of May 26, 2019, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was submitted for the Southwest Properties portion of the Wells G&H Superfund site, which is one of the Beatrice sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") issued a Record of Decision (the "ROD") for the Southwest Properties portion of the site on September 29, 2017 and has entered into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to determine final responsibility for implementing the ROD.

Guarantees and Other Contingencies

We guarantee an obligation of the Lamb Weston business pursuant to a guarantee arrangement that existed prior to the Spinoff and remained in place following completion of the Spinoff until such guarantee obligations is substituted for guarantees issued by Lamb Weston. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, dated as of November 8, 2016 (the "Separation Agreement"), between us and Lamb Weston, this guarantee arrangement is deemed a liability of Lamb Weston that was transferred to Lamb Weston as part of the Spinoff. Accordingly, in the event that we are required to make any payments as a result of this guarantee arrangement, Lamb Weston is obligated to indemnify us for any such liability, reduced by any insurance proceeds received by us, in accordance with the terms of the indemnification provisions under the Separation Agreement.

Lamb Weston is a party to an agricultural sublease agreement with a third party for certain farmland through 2020 (subject, at Lamb Weston's option, to extension for two additional five-year periods). Under the terms of the sublease agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make certain rental payments to the sublessor. We have guaranteed the sublessor Lamb Weston's performance and the payment of all amounts (including indemnification obligations) owed by Lamb Weston under the sublease agreement, up to a maximum of $75.0 million. We believe the farmland associated with this sublease agreement is readily marketable for lease to other area farming operators. As such, we believe that any financial exposure to the Company, in the event that we were required to perform under the guarantee, would be largely mitigated.

We lease or leased certain office buildings from entities that we have determined to be variable interest entities. The lease agreements with these entities include fixed-price purchase options for the assets being leased. The lease agreements also contain contingent put options (the "lease put options") that allow or allowed the lessors to require us to purchase the buildings at the greater of original construction cost, or fair market value, without a lease agreement in place (the "put price") in certain limited circumstances. As a result of substantial impairment charges related to our divested Private Brands operations, these lease put options became exercisable. We are amortizing the difference between the put price and the estimated fair value (without a lease agreement in place) of the property over the remaining lease term within SG&A expenses. During fiscal 2018, we purchased two buildings that were subject to lease put options and recognized net losses totaling $48.2 million for the early exit of unfavorable lease contracts. During fiscal 2017, one of these lease agreements expired, and we reversed the applicable accrual and recognized a benefit of $6.7 million in SG&A expenses.

As of May 26, 2019 and May 27, 2018, there was one remaining leased building subject to a lease put option for which the put option price exceeded the estimated fair value of the property by $8.2 million, of which we had accrued $1.6 million and $1.2 million, respectively. This lease is accounted for as an operating lease, and accordingly, there are no material assets and liabilities, other than the accrued portion of the put price, associated with this entity included in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. We have determined that we do not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of this entity. In making this determination, we have considered, among other items, the terms of the lease agreement, the expected remaining useful life of the asset leased, and the capital structure of the lessor entity.

In certain limited situations, we will guarantee an obligation of an unconsolidated entity. We guarantee certain leases resulting from the divestiture of the JM Swank business completed in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. As of May 26, 2019, the remaining terms of these arrangements did not exceed four years and the maximum amount of future payments we have guaranteed was $1.2 million. In addition, we guarantee a lease resulting from an exited facility. As of May 26, 2019, the remaining term of this arrangement did not exceed eight years and the maximum amount of future payments we have guaranteed was $19.1 million.

General

After taking into account liabilities recognized for all of the foregoing matters, management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity; however, it is reasonably possible that a change of the estimates of any of the foregoing matters may occur in the future and, as noted, the lead paint matter could result in a material final judgment which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.