| Commitments and Contingencies |
Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Civil Investigative Demand In March 2025, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in connection with an antitrust investigation to determine whether there is, has been or may be a violation of the antitrust laws by anticompetitive conduct by and among egg producers. In August 2025, the Company received a subpoena from the State of New York requesting information and documents related to its investigation of anticompetitive conduct and high egg prices in the egg industry. The Company is complying with the CID and the subpoena and cooperating with the investigations.
Management cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of these investigations and is unable to estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, at this time. State of Texas v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. d/b/a Wharton; and Wharton County Foods, LLC On April 23, 2020, the Company and its subsidiary Wharton County Foods, LLC (“WCF”) were named as defendants in State of Texas v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. d/b/a Wharton; and Wharton County Foods, LLC, Cause No. 2020-25427, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The State of Texas (the “State”) asserted claims based on the Company’s and WCF’s alleged violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 17.41-17.63 (“DTPA”). The State claimed that the Company and WCF offered shell eggs at excessive or exorbitant prices during the COVID-19 state of emergency and made misleading statements about shell egg prices. The State sought temporary and permanent injunctions against the Company and WCF to prevent further alleged violations of the DTPA, along with over $ 100,000 in damages. On August 13, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the State’s original petition with prejudice. On September 11, 2020, the State filed a notice of appeal, which was assigned to the Texas Court of Appeals for the First District. On August 16, 2022, the appeals court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. On October 31, 2022, the Company and WCF appealed the First District Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Texas. On September 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of Texas denied the Company’s Petition for Review and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. On November 30, 2024, the State filed an amended petition, primarily to address a procedural deficiency that required the State to generally plead it was seeking monetary relief over $ 1.0 restitution, civil penalties, attorney’s fees and costs. Pre-trial proceedings are progressing in accordance with the court’s schedule. Management believes the risk of material loss related to this matter to be remote. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al. v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al. On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the U.S. shell egg industry. The Company settled all of these cases, except for the claims of certain plaintiffs who sought substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs). These remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., and Nestle USA, Inc. (the “Egg Products Plaintiffs”) and, until a subsequent settlement was reached as described below, The Kellogg Company. On September 13, 2019, the case with the Egg Products Plaintiffs was remanded from a multi-district litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2002, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al. v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-8808, for trial. The Egg Products Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and other defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15. U.S.C. § 1, by agreeing to limit the production of eggs and thereby illegally to raise the prices that plaintiffs paid for processed egg products. In particular, the Egg Products Plaintiffs attacked certain features of the United Egg Producers animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many other egg On October 24, 2019, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with The Kellogg Company dismissing all claims against the Company for an amount that did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. On November 11, 2019, a stipulation for dismissal was filed with the court, and on March 28, 2022, the court dismissed the Company with prejudice. The trial of this case began on October 17, 2023. On December 1, 2023, the jury returned a decision awarding the Egg Products Plaintiffs $ 17.8 million in damages. On November 6, 2024, the court entered a final judgement against the Company and other defendants, jointly and severally, totaling $ 43.6 million after trebling. On December 4, 2024, the Company filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, and a motion to alter or amend the judgment. On December 13, 2024, the court granted defendants’ November 20, 2024 motion to stay enforcement of the judgment and entered an agreed order requiring the defendants to post security during post-judgment proceedings and appeal, and stayed proceedings to enforce the judgment until the disposition of the post-judgment motions and ultimate appeals. On December 17, 2024, the Company posted a bond in the approximate amount of $ 23.9 million, representing a portion of the total bond required to preserve the right to appeal the trial court’s decision. Another defendant posted a bond for the remaining amount. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the claims asserted by the Egg Products Plaintiffs. If the jury’s decision is ultimately upheld, the Company would be jointly and severally liable with other defendants for treble 43.6 million, subject to credit for certain settlements with previous settling defendants, plus the Egg Product Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees. During our second fiscal quarter of 2024, we recorded an accrued expense of $ 19.6 million in selling, general and administrative expenses in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income and classified as other noncurrent liabilities in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Although less than the bond posted by the Company, the accrual represents our estimate of the Company’s proportional share of the reasonably
possible ultimate damages award, excluding the Egg Product Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees that we believe would be approximately offset by the credits noted above. We have entered into a judgment allocation and joint defense agreement with the other defendants remaining in the case. Our accrual may change in the future to the extent we are successful in further proceedings in State of Oklahoma Watershed Pollution Litigation On June 18, 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed suit, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc., Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc., George’s, Inc., Peterson Farms, Inc. and Simmons Foods, Inc., and certain of their affiliates. The State of Oklahoma claims that through the disposal of chicken litter the defendants polluted the Illinois River Watershed. This watershed provides water to eastern Oklahoma. The complaint sought injunctive relief and monetary damages, but the claim for monetary damages was dismissed by the court. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. discontinued operations in the watershed in or around 2005. Since the litigation began, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. purchased 100 % of the membership interests of Benton County Foods, LLC, which is an ongoing commercial shell egg operation within the Illinois River Watershed. Benton County Foods, LLC is not a defendant in the litigation. We also have a number of small contract producers that operate in the area. The non-jury trial in the case began in September 2009 and concluded in February 2010. On January 18, 2023, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the State of Oklahoma, but no penalties were assessed. The court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for state law nuisance, federal common law nuisance, and state law trespass. The court also found the producers vicariously liable for the actions of their contract producers. On June 12, 2023, the court ordered the parties to mediate before retired Tenth Circuit Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha, but the mediation was unsuccessful. On June 26, 2024, the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. On September 13, 2024, a status hearing was held and the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for December 3, 2024, to determine whether any legal remedy is available based on the now 14-year-old record and changed circumstances of the Illinois River watershed. On June 17, 2025, the court entered an opinion and order that found that the State satisfied its burden to show that conditions in the Illinois River watershed have not materially changed since the original trial and the case was not moot. On July 9, 2025, the State of Oklahoma filed its form of proposed final judgment and brief in support thereof seeking over $100 million in total fines from all defendants, including 18.2 million in fines from the Company, plus attorneys’ fees. On July 30, 2025, the Company and other defendants filed their form of proposed final judgment and brief in support thereof seeking no monetary fines or penalties. The court has not ruled on these submissions but is expected to enter a final judgment imposing fines and potentially non-monetary remedies, if any, in the future. No accrual for this legal proceeding has been recorded as of August 30, 2025. Based on information available as of September 30, 2025, management expects that the ultimate resolution of this litigation will result in a loss to the Company, if any, that is substantially less than the amount sought from the Company by the State of Oklahoma. Other Matters In addition to the above, the Company is involved in various other claims and litigation incidental to its business. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, management, upon the advice of counsel, is of the opinion that the final outcome should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position. |