Note 10- Commitmentsand Contingencies
In re ShellEggs Litigation
SinceNovember2025,theCompanyhasbeennamedasadefendantinseverallawsuitsfiledinfederalcourtsalleging
substantiallyidenticalclaims,including: (1)thefollowing lawsuitsin theSouthernDistrict of Indiana:(a) King KullenGrocery
Co., Inc.v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 1:25-cv-2274,(b) NineteenseventynineLLC d/b/aThe BreakfastJoyntv.
Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 1:25-cv-2301,(c) TaylorEgg Products,Inc.v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc., et al., CaseNo.
1:25-cv-2554,(d) Hudsonv.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.etal., CaseNo. 1:25-cv-02573,(e) BrandonHuyler v.Cal-Maine Foods,
Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 1:26-cv-00135,and(f) Gloria Emery, CarolGoldberg, andCaseyWhalen v.Cal-Maine Foods,Inc., et al.,
CaseNo.1:26-cv-00193;(2)thefollowing lawsuitsintheNorthernDistrict ofIllinois: (a)BirchmansParisian,LLC(d/b/a
Lisciandro'sRestaurant)v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc., et al., CaseNo. 1:25-cv-14030,(b) Phil-N-Cindy's Lunch, Inc. v.Cal-Maine
Foods,Inc.,etal.,CaseNo. 1:25-cv-14082,(c) Yell-O-Glow Corporationv.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 1:25-cv-
15084,and(d) TariqHabash,Delia Govea,Andrew Phillips, andCatalinaTorres v.Urner Barry Publications,Inc., Cal-Maine
Foods,Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 1:25-cv-14112;(3) thefollowing lawsuitsin theWesternDistrict of Wisconsin: (a) MatthewEdlin
v.Cal-MaineFoods, Inc.,et al., CaseNo. 3:25-cv-946,(b) IndiaPrice, Lakia Session, andKaren Solomonv. Cal-Maine Foods,
Inc., et al.,Case No. 3:25-cv-1016; (c) CheesecakeFunk LLC d/b/aCheesecakeFunk v. Cal-Maine Foods,Inc., et al., CaseNo.
3:26-cv-00400,(d) Philly PhlavaOriginal SteaksandHoagies,Inc.v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 3:26-cv-00417;
(e) LPJJLLCv.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.etal., CaseNo. 3:26-cv-00425;(f) C&L,LLC, etal. v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.etal.,
CaseNo.3:26-cv-00454;(g)AngelicaAllison, etal.v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal.,CaseNo.3:26-cv-00702;and(h)
Gutierrez FamilyLLC, etal. v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 3:26-md-03175;(4) a lawsuit in the WesternDistrict of
Missouri: Ryanv.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 4:25-cv-00999;and(5) the following lawsuits in the CentralDistrict
ofCalifornia:(a) DenWestRestaurants,Inc.,etal. v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal., CaseNo. 8:26-cv-00949,and(b) DMSD
Restaurants,Inc.,etal.v.Cal-MaineFoods,Inc.,etal.,CaseNo.2:26-cv-04204.Thelawsuitsgenerallyallegethatthe
Company,alongwith otheregg producersandindustryassociations,conspired toartificially inflatethe prices ofconventional
shell eggs nationwide,primarilythroughmanipulationofindustryprice benchmarks(suchastheUrner BarryEgg Indexand
Eggs Clearinghouse, Inc.spot market),coordinatedreporting andsupply restrictions, particularlyduring the calendaryear2022
highly pathogenicavianinfluenza(“HPAI”)outbreak.In eachcase, theplaintiffseeks certificationof aputativeclass ofeither
direct orindirect purchasers,monetarydamages,injunctiverelief, attorneys’fees, and,in some cases,restitution underSection
1 of theShermanAct, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (the “ShermanAct”) andvariousstateantitrustandconsumerprotectionstatutes.
TheaboveactionshavebeentransferredtotheWesternDistrict ofWisconsinformultidistrict proceedings.An initial judicial
managementconferencetookplaceonMay8, 2026,where thecourtenteredaninitial case managementorder, setting forth
deadlinesfortheconsolidatedcomplaintsandinitial briefing tobefiled.No discoveryhastakenplace in anyof theactions.
The Companydisputes plaintiffs’allegationsin eachof theseactionsandintends tovigorously defenditself in these actions.
Civil InvestigativeDemand
InMarch2025,theCompanyreceivedaCivil InvestigativeDemand(“CID”) fromthe U.S. Departmentof Justice (“DOJ”) in
connectionwithanantitrustinvestigationtodeterminewhethertherewasaviolationoftheantitrustlawsthroughalleged
anticompetitiveconductbyandamongegg producers.InAugust 2025,theCompanyreceived asubpoenafromthe Stateof
New Yorkrequestinginformationanddocumentsrelatedtoits investigation ofanticompetitiveconductandhigh eggprices in
theegg industry,andin March2026,theCompanyreceivedasimilar subpoenafromtheStateofWashingtonrelatedtoits
investigationofanticompetitiveconductandhigh egg prices in the egg industry. Additionally,variousstates’attorneysgeneral
sought tojoin theDOJ’s investigationor requestedaccessto theconfidentialdisclosures by theCompanyto theDOJ.
On or aboutJune 25, 2026, theCompanyentered into an agreementwith the DOJand 17 states’attorneysgeneral to resolvethe
investigation,subject to applicablecourt approvalsandprocedures.On June 29, 2026,the UnitedStatesandcertainstatesfiled
a civil antitrustcomplaintagainst
the Companyalleging that the Companyandcertainother defendantscoordinatedbidding to
manipulatewholebenchmarkpricesandsimultaneouslyfiledtheproposedsettlementandproposedfinaljudgments.The
settlementwiththeUnitedStatesis proceedingthroughtheAntitrustProceduresandPenaltiesAct, commonlyknownasthe
TunneyAct, processthat includespublicationof the proposedjudgment,competitiveimpactstatement,public commentperiod,
andeventualcourtreview before entryof thefinal judgment.The Companydenied all wrongdoing or violationsof law andno
finesor penaltieswere assessedagainsttheCompany.Inconnectionwith theagreement,theCompanyagreed toimplement
certainantitrustcomplianceandreporting measures,todonate
30
million eggs tofoodbanksandnon-profits,andpaid$
1.5
million tothe settlingstatesto resolve thematter.