REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2014
REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES	REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES Like other participants in the industry, we are subject to various laws and regulations administered by federal, state and other government entities, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and corresponding state agencies, as well as the United States Department of Agriculture, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission and similar agencies in foreign countries. We from time to time receive notices and inquiries from regulatory authorities and others asserting that we are not in compliance with such laws and regulations. In some instances, litigation ensues. In addition, individuals may initiate litigation against us. North Carolina Nuisance Litigation In July, August and September 2013, 25 complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina by 479 individual plaintiffs against Smithfield and our wholly owed subsidiary, Murphy-Brown alleging causes of actions for nuisance and related claims. All 25 complaints were dismissed without prejudice in September and October 2014. In August, September and October 2014, 25 complaints were filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina by 515 individual plaintiffs against our wholly owned subsidiary, Murphy-Brown, alleging causes of action for nuisance and related claims. The complaints stemmed from the nuisance cases previously filed in the Superior Court of Wake County. On February 23, 2015, all 25 complaints were amended and one complaint was severed into two separate actions. The 26 currently pending complaints were filed on behalf of 541 plaintiffs and relate to approximately 14 company-owned and 75 contract farms. All 26 complaints include causes of action for temporary nuisance and negligence and seek recovery of an unspecified amount of compensatory, special and punitive damages, as well as unspecified injunctive and equitable relief. Murphy-Brown is in the process of responding to the complaints in all 26 cases. The Company believes that the claims are unfounded and intends to defend the suits vigorously. Our policy for establishing accruals and disclosures for contingent liabilities is contained in Note 1-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. We established a reserve estimating our expenses to defend against these and similar potential claims on the Successor's opening balance sheet. Consequently, expenses and other liabilities associated with these claims for subsequent periods will not affect our profits or losses unless our reserve proves to be insufficient or excessive. However, legal expenses incurred in our and our subsidiaries’ defense of these claims and any payments made to plaintiffs through unfavorable verdicts or otherwise will negatively impact our cash flows and our liquidity position. Given that these matters are in its very preliminary stages and given the inherent uncertainty of the outcome for these and similar potential claims, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these loss contingencies outside the expenses we will incur to defend against these claims. We will continue to review whether an additional accrual is necessary and whether we have the ability to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters.

REGULATION AND CONTINGENCIES

Like other participants in the industry, we are subject to various laws and regulations administered by federal, state and other government entities, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and corresponding state agencies, as well as the United States Department of Agriculture, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission and similar agencies in foreign countries.

We from time to time receive notices and inquiries from regulatory authorities and others asserting that we are not in compliance with such laws and regulations. In some instances, litigation ensues. In addition, individuals may initiate litigation against us.

North Carolina Nuisance Litigation

In July, August and September 2013, 25 complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina by 479 individual plaintiffs against Smithfield and our wholly owed subsidiary, Murphy-Brown alleging causes of actions for nuisance and related claims. All 25 complaints were dismissed without prejudice in September and October 2014.

In August, September and October 2014, 25 complaints were filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina by 515 individual plaintiffs against our wholly owned subsidiary, Murphy-Brown, alleging causes of action for nuisance and related claims. The complaints stemmed from the nuisance cases previously filed in the Superior Court of Wake County. On February 23, 2015, all 25 complaints were amended and one complaint was severed into two separate actions. The 26 currently pending complaints were filed on behalf of 541 plaintiffs and relate to approximately 14 company-owned and 75 contract farms. All 26 complaints include causes of action for temporary nuisance and negligence and seek recovery of an unspecified amount of compensatory, special and punitive damages, as well as unspecified injunctive and equitable relief. Murphy-Brown is in the process of responding to the complaints in all 26 cases. The Company believes that the claims are unfounded and intends to defend the suits vigorously.

Our policy for establishing accruals and disclosures for contingent liabilities is contained in Note 1-Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. We established a reserve estimating our expenses to defend against these and similar potential claims on the Successor's opening balance sheet. Consequently, expenses and other liabilities associated with these claims for subsequent periods will not affect our profits or losses unless our reserve proves to be insufficient or excessive. However, legal expenses incurred in our and our subsidiaries’ defense of these claims and any payments made to plaintiffs through unfavorable verdicts or otherwise will negatively impact our cash flows and our liquidity position. Given that these matters are in its very preliminary stages and given the inherent uncertainty of the outcome for these and similar potential claims, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these loss contingencies outside the expenses we will incur to defend against these claims. We will continue to review whether an additional accrual is necessary and whether we have the ability to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters.