On July 21, 2021, a lawsuit was filed by an individual, Odette Blanco de Fernandez, who alleges that she owns a claim to confiscated property, related persons who purportedly inherited claims to confiscated property (“Inheritors”) and estates of deceased persons who purportedly own claims to confiscated property (“Estates”) against Seaboard Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act (the “Act”). The same plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit against Seaboard Marine Ltd. (“Seaboard Marine”) on December 20, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Act provides that any person who knowingly and intentionally “traffics” in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government may be liable to any U.S. national who owns the claim to such property for money damages in an amount equal to the greater of the current value of the property or the value of the property when confiscated, plus interest from the date of confiscation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and treble damages under certain circumstances. The Act numerates certain activities that are excluded from liability, including “lawful travel.” The complaint in each of the cases alleges that the plaintiffs hold claims to a 70-year concession to develop port facilities at Mariel Bay, Cuba, and to ownership of surrounding land, and that these and other property rights were confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960. They further allege that Seaboard Corporation and Seaboard Marine knowingly and intentionally “trafficked” within the meaning of the Act in the confiscated property by carrying and/or directing cargo to the Port of Mariel. The Court in the Seaboard Marine case dismissed the claims of the Inheritors and the Estates because they did not acquire the claims prior to March 1996, as required by the Act. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the Estates. As to the suit against Seaboard Corporation, on October 21, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which principally adds allegations that there were additional callings made by Seaboard Marine at the Port of Mariel and that Seaboard Corporation engaged in a pattern of doing business with individuals and entities in contravention of the foreign policy of the U.S. The operative complaints in each lawsuit seek unspecified damages (including treble damages) and pre-filing interest as provided in the Act; pre-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses; and such other relief as is just and proper. Seaboard believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in these matters and intends to vigorously defend these matters. It is impossible at this stage either to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting from either of these suits, or to reasonably estimate the amount of potential loss or range of potential loss, if any, resulting from the suits.

On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the “District Court”) against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. The complaint also named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant. Additional class action complaints making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed in the District Court, and three additional actions by standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were filed in or transferred to the District Court. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. The operative 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 assert claims under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 16, 2020, the District Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaints, but the District Court later dismissed all claims against Seaboard Corporation without prejudice.

In 2021 and 2022, additional standalone plaintiffs filed similar actions in other federal courts throughout the country, several of which name Seaboard Corporation as a defendant. These actions have been or are expected to be conditionally transferred to Minnesota for pretrial proceedings pursuant to an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Also in 2021, the states of New Mexico and Alaska filed cases in state court against substantially the same defendants, including Seaboard Foods LLC and Seaboard Corporation, based on substantially similar allegations.

Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in these matters and intends to vigorously defend these matters. It is impossible at this stage either to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting from these suits, or to reasonably estimate the amount of potential loss or range 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 of 2018 naming as parties Seaboard Corporation and its subsidiaries, Seaboard Overseas Limited (“SOL”) and Seaboard Uruguay Holdings Ltd. (“Seaboard Uruguay”). Seaboard Corporation has a 45% indirect ownership of Cereoil. The suit seeks an order requiring Seaboard Corporation, 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 believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in this matter and intends to vigorously defend this matter. 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 plus interest. 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 of 2018 naming as parties Seaboard Corporation, 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 believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in this matter and intends to vigorously defend this matter. 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 Corporation 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 September 30, 2021, HSBC Bank (Uruguay) SA ("HSBC"), a creditor in the Cereoil bankruptcy proceeding pending in Uruguay, filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Seaboard Corporation alleging claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and fraud by concealment based upon a comfort letter, alleged statements by Cereoil personnel (including the chief financial officer serving at the behest of Seaboard), and the same grain transactions that the Trustee challenges as fraudulent conveyances in the Cereoil bankruptcy in Uruguay discussed above. HSBC seeks $10 million plus interest and other relief in excess of $3.2 million. Seaboard believes that is has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in this matter and intends to vigorously defend this matter. It is impossible at this stage to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting from this suit.

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 of 2018 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 believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in this matter and intends to vigorously defend this matter. 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, asset sales and removal of duplicative claims, is estimated to be approximately $8 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.

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.

Certain of Seaboard’s non-consolidated affiliates have debt supporting their underlying operations. From time to time, Seaboard will provide guarantees of that debt in order to further Seaboard’s business objectives. As of December 31, 2021, guarantees outstanding were not material. Seaboard has not accrued a liability for any of the guarantees as management considers the likelihood of loss to be remote.

As of December 31, 2021, Seaboard had various non-cancelable commitments under contractual agreements:

(a)

The Pork segment has contracted with third parties for the purchase of hogs to support its operations. The amounts are based on projected market prices as of December 31, 2021. During 2021, 2020 and 2019, the Pork segment paid $145 million, $108 million and $121 million, respectively, for hogs purchased under committed contracts.

(b)

The Pork segment enters into grain purchase and feedstock contracts to support its operations. For variable costs, the amounts are based on projected commodity prices as of December 31, 2021.

(c)

The CT&M segment enters into grain purchase contracts, primarily to support firm sales commitments. The amounts are based on projected commodity prices as of December 31, 2021.

(d)

The Power segment has a natural gas supply contract for a significant portion of the fuel required for the barge under construction. Also, the Marine segment has a fuel supply agreement to purchase natural gas for the vessels under construction. The variable price components are based on market prices as of December 31, 2021.

(e)

The capital expenditures are primarily for the Marine segment’s purchase of two vessels in 2022 and construction of three vessels with expected delivery in 2024, based on contracts. The biogas recovery and other projects in the Pork segment are based on commitments per respective contracts.