Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Contingency [Abstract]

Contingencies

We, like other food manufacturers, are from time to time subject to various administrative, regulatory, and other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We are currently a defendant in a variety of such legal proceedings, including certain lawsuits related to the alleged price-fixing of shelf stable tuna products prior to 2011 by a business previously owned by, but divested prior to our acquisition of, Big Heart Pet Brands, the significant majority of which were settled and paid during 2019 and 2020. While we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate results of these proceedings or potential settlements associated with these or other matters, we have accrued losses for certain contingent liabilities that we have determined are probable and reasonably estimable at July 31, 2022. Based on the information known to date, with the exception of the matters discussed below, we do not believe the final outcome of these proceedings would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In addition to the legal proceedings discussed above, we are currently a defendant in Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) v. Brad Barry LLC, et al., which alleges that we, in addition to nearly eighty other defendants (collectively the “Defendants”) who manufacture, package, distribute, or sell packaged coffee, failed to provide warnings for our coffee products of exposure to the chemical acrylamide as required under California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (better known as “Proposition 65”). CERT sought equitable relief, including warnings to consumers, as well as civil penalties in the amount of the statutory maximum of $2,500 per day per violation of Proposition 65. In addition, CERT asserted that every consumed cup of coffee, absent a compliant warning, was equivalent to a violation under Proposition 65. In June 2019, the state agency responsible for administering the Proposition 65 program, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), approved a regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65, and in August 2020, the trial court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the regulation. CERT appealed the ruling in November 2020 to the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District, which is currently pending.

We are also defendants in a series of putative class action lawsuits that were originally filed in federal courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Texas, Washington, and Washington D.C., but have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs assert claims arising under various state laws for false advertising, consumer protection, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and similar statutes. Their claims are premised on allegations that we have misrepresented the number of servings that can be made from various canisters of Folgers coffee on the packaging for those products.

We are a defendant in five putative class action lawsuits as a result of our voluntary recall of select Jif peanut butter products. The plaintiffs assert causes of action for negligence, breach of warranties, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and, in some of the lawsuits, violations of state consumer protection and deceptive trade practices laws. Their claims are premised on allegations that we engaged in business practices designed to mislead the public regarding the safety of Jif peanut butter for human consumption due to the alleged presence of salmonella.

The outcome and the financial impact of these cases, if any, cannot be predicted at this time. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded for these matters as of July 31, 2022, and the likelihood of loss is not considered probable or estimable.

However, if we are required to pay significant damages, our business and financial results could be adversely impacted, and sales of those products could suffer not only in these locations but elsewhere.Product Recall: In May 2022, we initiated a voluntary recall of select Jif peanut butter products produced at our Lexington, Kentucky, facility and sold primarily in the U.S., due to potential salmonella contamination. At that time, we also suspended the manufacturing of these products at our Lexington facility and temporarily paused shipments from our Memphis, Tennessee, facility. No other products produced at our other facilities were affected by this recall. In June 2022, we resumed manufacturing and shipping at our Lexington facility, as well as shipping from our Memphis facility. We continue to partner with retailers to restock Jif peanut butter products as quickly as possible and anticipate a return to normal levels by the end of 2023. In addition to the impact of manufacturing downtime, we expect to incur total direct costs of approximately $90.0 by the end of 2023, net of the remaining anticipated insurance recoveries, related to customer returns, fees, unsaleable inventory, and other product recall-related costs, primarily within our U.S. Retail Consumer Foods segment. Approximately $65.0 of direct costs were recognized, net of the remaining anticipated insurance recoveries, during the three months ended July 31, 2022. We expect the majority of the remaining costs will be incurred through the third quarter of 2023.