Note 8 – Notes Payable, Long-term Debt, Commitments and Contingencies

Notes Payable

Of the $141 million of notes payable outstanding at June 30, 2018, all but $1 million were related to foreign subsidiaries, with $83 million denominated in South African rand, $32 million denominated in Argentine pesos, $21 million denominated in Canadian dollars and $4 million denominated in Zambian kwacha. The weighted average interest rate for outstanding notes payable was 14.95% and 10.48% at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. As of June 30, 2018, Seaboard had uncommitted credit lines totaling $550 million, of which $465 million related to foreign subsidiaries. Seaboard’s borrowing capacity under its uncommitted lines at June 30, 2018 was reduced by $141 million drawn under the uncommitted lines and $23 million of letters of credit. The notes payable under the credit lines are unsecured and do not require compensating balances. Also, Seaboard has a $100 million committed credit line secured by certain short-term investments, with no balance outstanding as of June 30, 2018.

Long-term Debt

The following is a summary of long-term debt:



		June 30,		December 31,
(Millions of dollars)		2018		2017
Term Loan due 2022	$	478	$	484
Foreign subsidiary obligations due 2019 through 2023		55		52
Total long-term debt at face value		533		536
Current maturities of long-term debt and unamortized discount		(25)		(54)
Long-term debt, less current maturities and unamortized discount	$	508	$	482

The interest rate on the Term Loan due 2022 was 3.72% and 3.20% at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. The weighted average interest rate on Seaboard’s foreign subsidiary obligations was 4.35% and 21.80% at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. Seaboard was in compliance with all restrictive debt covenants relating to these agreements as of June 30, 2018.

In conjunction with the acquisition discussed in Note 10, Seaboard incurred a euro-denominated note payable due to the sellers valued at $45 million at June 30, 2018. The change in value from the date of acquisition to the current reporting period reflects foreign currency fluctuations and the accretion of the discount to the note payable face value over the term that is recorded as additional interest expense. This foreign subsidiary obligation bears interest at an annual rate of 3.25%, with interest due annually on the anniversary date, until maturity on January 5, 2021.

Contingencies

On June 28, 2018, Wanda Duryea and eleven other indirect purchasers of pork products, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of indirect purchasers of pork products, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC (“Seaboard Foods”), and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional class action complaints making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating their output and limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats, Inc. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and state common law claims for unjust enrichment. The complaints also allege that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative classes. Seaboard intends to defend these cases vigorously. It is impossible at this stage either to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting from these suits, or to estimate the amount of potential loss, if any, resulting from the suits.

On March 20, 2018, the bankruptcy trustee (the “Trustee”) for Cereoil Uruguay S.A. (“Cereoil”) filed a suit in the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance in Uruguay that was served during the second quarter naming as parties Seaboard and Seaboard’s subsidiaries, Seaboard Overseas Limited (“SOL”) and Seaboard Uruguay Holdings Ltd. (“Seaboard Uruguay”). Seaboard has a 45% indirect ownership of Cereoil. The suit seeks an order requiring Seaboard, SOL, and Seaboard Uruguay to reimburse Cereoil the amount of $22 million, contending that deliveries of soybeans to SOL pursuant to purchase agreements should be set aside as fraudulent conveyances. Seaboard intends to defend this case vigorously. It is impossible at this stage to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting from this suit. In the event of an adverse ruling, Seaboard and its two subsidiaries could be ordered to pay the amount of $22 million. Any award in this case would offset against any award in the additional case described below filed by the Trustee on April 27, 2018.

On April 27, 2018, the Trustee for Cereoil filed another suit in the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance in Uruguay that was served during the second quarter naming as parties Seaboard, SOL, Seaboard Uruguay, all directors of Cereoil, including two individuals employed by Seaboard who served as directors at the behest of Seaboard, and the Chief Financial Officer of Cereoil, an employee of Seaboard who also served at the behest of Seaboard (collectively, the “Cereoil Defendants”). The Trustee contends that the Cereoil Defendants acted with willful misconduct to cause Cereoil’s insolvency, and thus should be ordered to pay all liabilities of Cereoil, net of assets. The bankruptcy filing lists total liabilities of $53 million and assets of $30 million. Seaboard intends to defend this case vigorously. It is impossible at this stage to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting from this suit. In the event of an adverse ruling, Seaboard and the other Cereoil Defendants could be ordered to pay the amount of the net indebtedness of Cereoil, which based on the bankruptcy schedules would total $23 million. It is possible that the net indebtedness could be higher than this amount if Cereoil’s liabilities are greater than $53 million and/or Cereoil’s assets are worth less than $30 million. In addition, in the event of an adverse ruling, the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance could order payment of the Trustee’s professional fees, interest, and other expenses. Any award in this case would offset against any award in the case described above filed on March 20, 2018.

On May 15, 2018, the Trustee for Nolston S.A. (“Nolston”) filed a suit in the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance in Uruguay that was served during the second quarter naming as parties Seaboard and the other Cereoil Defendants. Seaboard has a 45% indirect ownership of Nolston. The Trustee contends that the Cereoil Defendants acted with willful misconduct to cause Nolston’s insolvency, and thus should be ordered to pay all liabilities of Nolston, net of assets. The bankruptcy filing lists total liabilities of $29 million and assets of $15 million. Seaboard intends to defend this case vigorously. It is impossible at this stage to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting from this suit. In the event of an adverse ruling, Seaboard and the other Cereoil Defendants could be ordered to pay the amount of the net indebtedness of Nolston, which based on the bankruptcy schedules would total $14 million. It is possible that the net indebtedness could be higher than this amount if Nolston’s liabilities are greater than $29 million and/or Nolston’s assets are worth less than $15 million. In addition, in the event of an adverse ruling, the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance could order payment of the Trustee’s professional fees, interest, and other expenses.

On September 18, 2014, and subsequently in 2015 and 2016, Seaboard received a number of grand jury subpoenas and informal requests for information from the Department of Justice, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (“AFMLS”), seeking records related to specified foreign companies and individuals. The companies and individuals as to which the requested records relate were not affiliated with Seaboard, although Seaboard has also received subpoenas and requests for additional information relating to an affiliate of Seaboard. During 2017, Seaboard received grand jury subpoenas requesting documents and information related to money transfers and bank accounts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) and other African countries and requests to interview certain Seaboard employees and to obtain testimony before a grand jury. Seaboard has retained outside counsel and is cooperating with the government’s investigation. It is impossible at this stage either to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome or to estimate the amount of potential loss, if any, resulting from the government’s inquiry.

On September 19, 2012, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) executed three search warrants authorizing the seizure of certain records from Seaboard’s offices in Merriam, Kansas and at the Seaboard Foods employment office and the human resources department in Guymon, Oklahoma. The warrants generally called for the seizure of employment-related files, certain e-mails and other electronic records relating to Medicaid and Medicaid recipients, certain health care providers in the Guymon area, and Seaboard’s health plan and certain personnel issues. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma (“USAO”), which has been leading the investigation, previously advised Seaboard that it intended to close its investigation and that no charges would be brought against Seaboard. However, discussions continue with the USAO, ICE and the Oklahoma Attorney General's office regarding the matter, including the possibility of a settlement. No proceedings have been filed or brought as of the date of this report. It is not possible at this time to determine whether a settlement will be reached or whether Seaboard will incur any material fines, penalties or liabilities in connection with this matter.

Seaboard is subject to various administrative and judicial proceedings and other legal matters related to the normal conduct of its business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of these items is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the condensed consolidated financial statements of Seaboard.

Contingent Obligations

Certain of the non-consolidated affiliates and third-party contractors who perform services for Seaboard have bank debt supporting their underlying operations. From time to time, Seaboard will provide guarantees of that debt in order to further Seaboard’s business objectives. Seaboard does not issue guarantees of third parties for compensation. As of June 30, 2018, guarantees outstanding to affiliates and third parties were not material. Seaboard has not accrued a liability for any of the affiliate or third-party guarantees as management considers the likelihood of loss to be remote. See Notes Payable above for discussion of letters of credit.