Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Dec. 26, 2015

Legal Proceedings [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure Text Block

12.In June 2010, the Company received a Notice of Violation of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65, from the Environmental Law Foundation ("ELF").  This notice was made to the California Attorney General and various other government officials, and to 49 companies including Seneca Foods Corporation whom ELF alleges manufactured, distributed or sold packaged peaches, pears, fruit cocktail and fruit juice that contain lead without providing a clear and reasonable warning to consumers.  Under California law, proper notice must be made to the State and involved firms at least 60 days before any suit under Proposition 65 may be filed by private litigants like ELF.  That 60-day period has expired and to date neither the California Attorney General nor any appropriate district attorney or city attorney has initiated an action against the Company.  However, private litigant ELF filed an action against the Company and 27 other named companies on September 28, 2011, in Superior Court of Alameda County, California, alleging violations of Proposition 65 and seeking various measures of relief, including injunctive and declaratory relief and civil penalties.  The Company, along with the other named companies, vigorously defended the claim.  A responsive answer was filed, the discovery process was completed and a trial on liability was held beginning in April of 2013 in accordance with court schedules.  The trial was completed on May 16, 2013 and, on July 15, 2013 the judge issued a tentative and proposed statement of decision agreeing with the Company, and the other defendants, that the “safe harbor” defense had been met under the regulations relating to Proposition 65 and the Company will not be required to place a Proposition 65 warning label on the products at issue in the case.  The trial decision was finalized and the decision was appealed by ELF with a filing dated October 3, 2013.  The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One unanimously rejected the appeal by ELF in a decision dated March 17, 2015.  ELF filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court on April 28, 2015, and the petition was denied on July 8, 2015.   With the successful defense of the case, the remedies portion of the case was not litigated and the denial of review by the California Supreme Court effectively ends the action, with only a few procedural matters to clean-up as a result of the denial of review.  Our portion of legal fees in defense of this action have been sizable, as would be expected with litigation resulting in trial, and the appeal, but have not had a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Additionally, in the ordinary course of its business, the Company is made party to certain legal proceedings seeking monetary damages, including proceedings invoking product liability claims, either directly or through indemnification obligations, and we are not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to any such matter.