Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Refer to the description of certain legal proceedings pending against us under Part II, Item 8, Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 20: Commitments and Contingencies, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference. Listed below are certain additional legal proceedings involving the Company and/or its subsidiaries.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 28, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services “with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels.” The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants “agreed to share detailed data on [g]rower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing [g]rower compensation below competitive levels.” The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative class. We and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2017. That motion is pending.

On April 23, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Finding and Notice of Violation (NOV) to Tyson Foods, Inc. and our subsidiary, Southwest Products, LLC, alleging violations of the California Truck and Bus Regulation. The NOV alleged that certain diesel-powered trucks operated by us in California did not comply with California’s emission requirements for in-use trucks and that we did not verify the compliance status of independent carriers hired to carry products in California. In January 2016, the EPA proposed that we pay a civil penalty of $283,990 to resolve these allegations. In June 2017, the EPA withdrew this proposal and referred the matter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). We are cooperating with the CARB and, in July 2017, we signed a tolling agreement with the CARB. The CARB has not yet made a demand in the matter.

On June 17, 2014, the Missouri attorney general filed a civil lawsuit against us in the Circuit Court of Barry County, Missouri, concerning an incident that occurred in May 2014 in which some feed supplement was discharged from our plant in Monett, Missouri, to the City of Monett’s wastewater treatment plant allegedly leading to a fish kill in a local stream and odor issues around the plant. In January 2015, a consent judgment was entered that resolved the lawsuit. The judgment required payment of $540,000, which included amounts for penalties, cost recovery and supplemental environmental projects. We subsequently satisfied all these requirements, and the consent judgment was terminated in January 2017. Following a criminal investigation by the EPA into the incident, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Tyson Poultry, Inc., pled guilty to two misdemeanor violations of the federal Clean Water Act pursuant to a plea agreement conditionally approved on September 27, 2017 by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Tyson Poultry, Inc. has agreed to pay a $2 million fine, to make a $500,000 community service payment and to fund third-party environmental audits of numerous feed mills and wastewater treatment plants. The court will determine whether to grant final approval of the terms of the plea agreement at a future sentencing hearing to be scheduled following the completion of a pre-sentencing report.

On June 19, 2005, the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Environment of the State of Oklahoma filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against Tyson Foods, Inc., three subsidiaries and six other poultry integrators. The complaint, which was subsequently amended, asserts a number of state and federal causes of action including, but not limited to, counts under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and state-law public nuisance theories. Oklahoma alleges that the defendants and certain contract growers who were not joined in the lawsuit polluted the surface waters, groundwater and associated drinking water supplies of the Illinois River Watershed through the land application of poultry litter. Oklahoma’s claims were narrowed through various rulings issued before and during trial and its claims for natural resource damages were dismissed by the district court in a ruling issued on July 22, 2009, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A non-jury trial of the remaining claims including Oklahoma’s request for injunctive relief began on September 24, 2009. Closing arguments were held on February 11, 2010. The district court has not yet rendered its decision from the trial.

Other Matters: As of September 30, 2017, we had approximately 122,000 employees and, at any time, have various employment practices matters outstanding. In the aggregate, these matters are significant to the Company, and we devote significant resources to managing employment issues. Additionally, we are subject to other lawsuits, investigations and claims (some of which involve substantial amounts) arising out of the conduct of our business. While the ultimate results of these matters cannot be determined, they are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.