TYSON FOODS, INC. - Quarter Report: 2011 January (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended January 1, 2011

OR

For the transition period from              to             

001-14704

(Commission File Number)

TYSON FOODS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(479) 290-4000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of January 1, 2011.

Table of Contents

TYSON FOODS, INC.

INDEX

2

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

TYSON FOODS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(In millions, except per share data)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.

3

Table of Contents

TYSON FOODS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS

(In millions, except share and per share data)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.

4

Table of Contents

TYSON FOODS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In millions)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.

5

Table of Contents

TYSON FOODS, INC.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1: ACCOUNTING POLICIES

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The consolidated condensed financial statements have been prepared by Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson,” “the Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”). Certain information and accounting policies and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. Although we believe the disclosures contained herein are adequate to make the information presented not misleading, these consolidated condensed financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 2, 2010. Preparation of consolidated condensed financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions affect reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated condensed financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

We believe the accompanying consolidated condensed financial statements contain all adjustments, which are of a normal recurring nature, necessary to state fairly our financial position as of January 1, 2011, and the results of operations and cash flows for the three months ended January 1, 2011, and January 2, 2010. Results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the full year.

CONSOLIDATION

The consolidated condensed financial statements include the accounts of all wholly-owned subsidiaries, as well as majority-owned subsidiaries for which we have a controlling interest. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

We have an investment in a joint venture, Dynamic Fuels LLC (Dynamic Fuels), in which we have a 50 percent ownership interest. Dynamic Fuels qualifies as a variable interest entity. We consolidate Dynamic Fuels since we are the primary beneficiary. At January 1, 2011, Dynamic Fuels had $169 million of total assets, of which $145 million was property, plant and equipment, and $106 million of total liabilities, of which $100 million was long-term debt. At October 2, 2010, Dynamic Fuels had $154 million of total assets, of which $145 million was property, plant and equipment, and $107 million of total liabilities, of which $100 million was long-term debt.

RECENTLY ADOPTED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued guidance removing the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity (QSPE). This guidance also clarifies the requirements for isolation and limitations on portions of financial assets eligible for sale accounting. This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009. We adopted this guidance at the beginning of fiscal year 2011. The adoption did not have a significant impact on our consolidated condensed financial statements.

In June 2009 and December 2009, the FASB issued guidance requiring an analysis to determine whether a variable interest gives the entity a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity. This guidance requires an ongoing assessment and eliminates the quantitative approach previously required for determining whether an entity is the primary beneficiary. This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009. We adopted this guidance at the beginning of fiscal year 2011. The adoption did not have a significant impact on our consolidated condensed financial statements.

NOTE 2: OTHER INCOME AND CHARGES

During the first quarter of fiscal 2011, we recorded an $11 million gain related to a sale of interests in an equity method investment. This gain was recorded in the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Income in Other, net.

6

Table of Contents

NOTE 3: DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Our business operations give rise to certain market risk exposures mostly due to changes in commodity prices, foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates. We manage a portion of these risks through the use of derivative financial instruments, primarily futures and options, to reduce our exposure to commodity price risk, foreign currency risk and interest rate risk. Forward contracts on various commodities, including grains, livestock and energy, are primarily entered into to manage the price risk associated with forecasted purchases of these inputs used in our production processes. Foreign exchange forward contracts are entered into to manage the fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, primarily as a result of certain receivable and payable balances. We also periodically utilize interest rate swaps to manage interest rate risk associated with our variable-rate borrowings.

Our risk management programs are periodically reviewed by our Board of Directors’ Audit Committee. These programs are monitored by senior management and may be revised as market conditions dictate. Our current risk management programs utilize industry-standard models that take into account the implicit cost of hedging. Risks associated with our market risks and those created by derivative instruments and the fair values are strictly monitored at all times, using Value-at-Risk and stress tests. Credit risks associated with our derivative contracts are not significant as we minimize counterparty concentrations, utilize margin accounts or letters of credit, and deal with credit-worthy counterparties. Additionally, our derivative contracts are mostly short-term in duration and we generally do not make use of credit-risk-related contingent features. No significant concentrations of credit risk existed at January 1, 2011.

We recognize all derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities at fair value in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets, with the exception of normal purchases and normal sales expected to result in physical delivery. The accounting for changes in the fair value (i.e., gains or losses) of a derivative instrument depends on whether it has been designated and qualifies as part of a hedging relationship and the type of hedging relationship. For those derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as hedging instruments, we designate the hedging instrument based upon the exposure being hedged (i.e., fair value hedge, cash flow hedge, or hedge of a net investment in a foreign operation). We qualify, or designate, a derivative financial instrument as a hedge when contract terms closely mirror those of the hedged item, providing a high degree of risk reduction and correlation. If a derivative instrument is accounted for as a hedge, depending on the nature of the hedge, changes in the fair value of the instrument either will be offset against the change in fair value of the hedged assets, liabilities or firm commitments through earnings, or be recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) (OCI) until the hedged item is recognized in earnings. The ineffective portion of an instrument’s change in fair value is recognized in earnings immediately. We designate certain forward contracts as follows:

Cash flow hedges

Derivative instruments, such as futures and options, are designated as hedges against changes in the amount of future cash flows related to procurement of certain commodities utilized in our production processes. We do not purchase forward and option commodity contracts in excess of our physical consumption requirements and generally do not hedge forecasted transactions beyond 18 months. The objective of these hedges is to reduce the variability of cash flows associated with the forecasted purchase of those commodities. For the derivative instruments we designate and qualify as a cash flow hedge, the effective portion of the gain or loss on the derivative is reported as a component of OCI and reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Gains and losses representing hedge ineffectiveness are recognized in earnings in the current period. Ineffectiveness related to our cash flow hedges was not significant for the three months ended January 1, 2011, and January 2, 2010.

We had the following aggregated notionals of outstanding forward and option contracts accounted for as cash flow hedges:

7

Table of Contents

The net amount of pretax gains in accumulated OCI as of January 1, 2011, expected to be reclassified into earnings within the next 12 months, was $14 million. During the three months ended January 1, 2011, and January 2, 2010, we did not reclassify significant pretax gains/losses into earnings as a result of the discontinuance of cash flow hedges due to the probability the original forecasted transaction would not occur by the end of the originally specified time period or within the additional period of time allowed by generally accepted accounting principles.

The following table sets forth the pretax impact of cash flow hedge derivative instruments on the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Income (in millions):

Fair value hedges

We designate certain futures contracts as fair value hedges of firm commitments to purchase livestock for slaughter. Our objective of these hedges is to minimize the risk of changes in fair value created by fluctuations in commodity prices associated with fixed price livestock firm commitments. We had the following aggregated notionals of outstanding forward contracts entered into to hedge forecasted commodity purchases which are accounted for as a fair value hedge:

For these derivative instruments we designate and qualify as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss on the derivative, as well as the offsetting gain or loss on the hedged item attributable to the hedged risk, are recognized in earnings in the current period. We include the gain or loss on the hedged items (i.e., livestock purchase firm commitments) in the same line item, Cost of Sales, as the offsetting gain or loss on the related livestock forward position.

Ineffectiveness related to our fair value hedges was not significant for the three months ended January 1, 2011, and January 2, 2010.

Foreign net investment hedges

We utilize forward foreign exchange contracts to protect the value of our net investments in certain foreign subsidiaries. For derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as a hedge of a net investment in a foreign currency, the gain or loss is reported in OCI as part of the cumulative translation adjustment to the extent it is effective, with the related amounts due to or from counterparties included in other liabilities or other assets. We utilize the forward-rate method of assessing hedge effectiveness. Any ineffective portions of net investment hedges are recognized in the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Income during the period of change. Ineffectiveness related to our foreign net investment hedges was not significant for the three months ended January 1, 2011, and January 2, 2010. At January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, we had $49 million and $49 million aggregate outstanding notionals related to our forward foreign currency contracts accounted for as foreign net investment hedges.

8

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the pretax impact of these derivative instruments on the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Income (in millions):

Undesignated positions

In addition to our designated positions, we also hold forward and option contracts for which we do not apply hedge accounting. These include certain derivative instruments related to commodities price risk, including grains, livestock and energy, foreign currency risk and interest rate risk. We mark these positions to fair value through earnings at each reporting date. We generally do not enter into undesignated positions beyond 18 months.

The objective of our undesignated grains, energy and livestock commodity positions is to reduce the variability of cash flows associated with the forecasted purchase of certain grains, energy and livestock inputs to our production processes. We also enter into certain forward sales of boxed beef and boxed pork and forward purchases of cattle and hogs at fixed prices. The fixed price sales contracts lock in the proceeds from a sale in the future and the fixed cattle and hog purchases lock in the cost. However, the cost of the livestock and the related boxed beef and boxed pork market prices at the time of the sale or purchase could vary from this fixed price. As we enter into fixed forward sales of boxed beef and boxed pork and forward purchases of cattle and hogs, we also enter into the appropriate number of livestock futures positions to mitigate a portion of this risk. Changes in market value of the open livestock futures positions are marked to market and reported in earnings at each reporting date, even though the economic impact of our fixed prices being above or below the market price is only realized at the time of sale or purchase. These positions generally do not qualify for hedge treatment due to location basis differences between the commodity exchanges and the actual locations when we purchase the commodities.

We have a foreign currency cash flow hedging program to hedge portions of forecasted transactions denominated in foreign currencies, primarily with forward contracts, to protect against the reduction in value of forecasted foreign currency cash flows. Our undesignated foreign currency positions generally would qualify for cash flow hedge accounting. However, to reduce earnings volatility, we normally will not elect hedge accounting treatment when the position provides an offset to the underlying related transaction that currently impacts earnings.

The objective of our undesignated interest rate swap is to manage interest rate risk exposure on a floating-rate bond. Our interest rate swap agreement effectively modifies our exposure to interest rate risk by converting a portion of the floating-rate bond to a fixed rate basis for the first five years, thus reducing the impact of the interest-rate changes on future interest expense. This interest rate swap does not qualify for hedge treatment due to differences in the underlying bond and swap contract interest-rate indices.

We had the following aggregate outstanding notionals related to our undesignated positions:

9

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the pretax impact of the undesignated derivative instruments on the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Income (in millions):

The following table sets forth the fair value of all derivative instruments outstanding in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets (in millions):

Our derivative assets and liabilities are presented in our Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets on a net basis. We net derivative assets and liabilities, including cash collateral when a legally enforceable master netting arrangement exists between the counterparty to a derivative contract and us. See Note 9: Fair Value Measurements for a reconciliation to amounts reported in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets in Other current assets and Other current liabilities.

10

Table of Contents

NOTE 4: INVENTORIES

Processed products, livestock and supplies and other are valued at the lower of cost or market. Cost includes purchased raw materials, live purchase costs, growout costs (primarily feed, contract grower pay and catch and haul costs), labor and manufacturing and production overhead, which are related to the purchase and production of inventories. Total inventory consists of the following (in millions):

NOTE 5: PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

The major categories of property, plant and equipment and accumulated depreciation are as follows (in millions):

NOTE 6: OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES

Other current liabilities are as follows (in millions):

NOTE 7: COMMITMENTS

We guarantee obligations of certain outside third parties, which consists of a lease and grower loans, all of which are substantially collateralized by the underlying assets. Terms of the underlying debt cover periods up to ten years, and the maximum potential amount of future payments as of January 1, 2011, was $71 million. We also maintain operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of the underlying leased assets at the end of the term of the lease. The remaining terms of the lease maturities cover periods over the next seven years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is $45 million, of which $22 million would be recoverable through various recourse provisions and an additional undeterminable recoverable amount based on the fair value of the underlying leased assets. The likelihood of material payments under these guarantees is not considered probable. At January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, no material liabilities for guarantees were recorded.

11

Table of Contents

We have cash flow assistance programs in which certain livestock suppliers participate. Under these programs, we pay an amount for livestock equivalent to a standard cost to grow such livestock during periods of low market sales prices. The amounts of such payments that are in excess of the market sales price are recorded as receivables and accrue interest. Participating suppliers are obligated to repay these receivables balances when market sales prices exceed this standard cost, or upon termination of the agreement. Our maximum obligation associated with these programs is limited to the fair value of each participating livestock supplier’s net tangible assets. The potential maximum obligation as of January 1, 2011, was approximately $215 million. The total receivables under these programs were $54 million and $51 million at January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, respectively, and are included, net of allowance for uncollectible amounts, in Other Assets in our Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. Even though these programs are limited to the net tangible assets of the participating livestock suppliers, we also manage a portion of our credit risk associated with these programs by obtaining security interests in livestock suppliers’ assets. After analyzing residual credit risks and general market conditions, we have recorded an allowance for these programs’ estimated uncollectible receivables of $15 million and $15 million at January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, respectively.

The minority partner in our Shandong Tyson Xinchang Foods joint ventures in China has the right to exercise put options to require us to purchase its entire 40% equity interest at a price equal to the minority partner’s contributed capital plus (minus) its pro-rata share of the joint venture’s accumulated and undistributed net earnings (losses). The put options are exercisable for a five-year term commencing April 2011. At January 1, 2011, the put options, if they had been exercisable, would have resulted in a purchase price of approximately $66 million for the minority partner’s entire equity interest.

NOTE 8: DEBT

The major components of debt are as follows (in millions):

Revolving Credit Facility

We have a $1.0 billion revolving credit facility that supports short-term funding needs and letters of credit. Loans made under this facility will mature and the commitments thereunder will terminate in March 2012. However, if our 2011 Notes are not refinanced, purchased or defeased prior to July 3, 2011, the outstanding loans under this facility will mature on and commitments thereunder will terminate on July 3, 2011. We incurred approximately $30 million in transaction fees which are amortized over the three-year life of this facility.

Availability under this facility, up to $1.0 billion, is based on a percentage of certain eligible receivables and eligible inventory and is reduced by certain reserves. After reducing the amount eligible by outstanding letters of credit issued under this facility, the amount available for borrowing under this facility at January 1, 2011, was $854 million. At January 1, 2011, we had outstanding letters of credit issued under this facility totaling $146 million, none of which were drawn upon. Our letters of credit are issued primarily in support of workers’ compensation insurance programs, derivative activities and Dynamic Fuels’ Gulf Opportunity Zone tax-exempt bonds. We had an additional $64 million of bilateral letters of credit not issued under this facility, none of which were drawn upon.

This facility is fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a senior secured basis by substantially all of our domestic subsidiaries. The guarantors’ cash, accounts receivable, inventory and proceeds received related to these items secure our obligations under this facility.

12

Table of Contents

2013 Notes

In September 2008, we issued $458 million principal amount 3.25% convertible senior unsecured notes due October 15, 2013, with interest payable semi-annually in arrears on April 15 and October 15. The conversion rate initially is 59.1935 shares of Class A stock per $1,000 principal amount of notes, which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of $16.89 per share of Class A stock. The 2013 Notes may be converted before the close of business on July 12, 2013, only under the following circumstances:

On and after July 15, 2013, until the close of business on the second scheduled trading day immediately preceding the maturity date, holders may convert their notes at any time, regardless of the foregoing circumstances. Upon conversion, we will deliver cash up to the aggregate principal amount of the 2013 Notes to be converted and shares of our Class A stock in respect of the remainder, if any, of our conversion obligation in excess of the aggregate principal amount of the 2013 Notes being converted. As of January 1, 2011, none of the conditions permitting conversion of the 2013 Notes had been satisfied.

The 2013 Notes were originally accounted for as a combined instrument because the conversion feature did not meet the requirements to be accounted for separately as a derivative financial instrument. However, we adopted new accounting guidance in the first quarter of fiscal 2010 and applied it retrospectively to all periods presented. This new accounting guidance required us to separately account for the liability and equity conversion features. Upon retrospective adoption, our effective interest rate on the 2013 Notes was determined to be 8.26%, which resulted in the recognition of a $92 million discount to these notes with the offsetting after tax amount of $56 million recorded to capital in excess of par value. This discount will be accreted over the five-year term of the convertible notes at the effective interest rate.

In connection with the issuance of the 2013 Notes, we entered into separate convertible note hedge transactions with respect to our Class A stock to minimize the potential economic dilution upon conversion of the 2013 Notes. We also entered into separate warrant transactions. We recorded the purchase of the note hedge transactions as a reduction to capital in excess of par value, net of $36 million pertaining to the related deferred tax asset, and we recorded the proceeds of the warrant transactions as an increase to capital in excess of par value. Subsequent changes in fair value of these instruments are not recognized in the financial statements as long as the instruments continue to meet the criteria for equity classification.

We purchased call options in private transactions for $94 million that permit us to acquire up to approximately 27 million shares of our Class A stock at an initial strike price of $16.89 per share, subject to adjustment. The call options allow us to acquire a number of shares of our Class A stock initially equal to the number of shares of Class A stock issuable to the holders of the 2013 Notes upon conversion. These call options will terminate upon the maturity of the 2013 Notes.

We sold warrants in private transactions for total proceeds of $44 million. The warrants permit the purchasers to acquire up to approximately 27 million shares of our Class A stock at an initial exercise price of $22.31 per share, subject to adjustment. The warrants are exercisable on various dates from January 2014 through March 2014.

The maximum amount of shares that may be issued to satisfy the conversion of the 2013 Notes is limited to 35.9 million shares. However, the convertible note hedge and warrant transactions, in effect, increase the initial conversion price of the 2013 Notes from $16.89 per share to $22.31 per share, thus reducing the potential future economic dilution associated with conversion of the 2013 Notes. If our share price is below $22.31 upon conversion of the 2013 Notes, there is no economic net share impact. Upon conversion, a 10% increase in our share price above the $22.31 conversion price would result in the issuance of 2.5 million incremental shares. The 2013 Notes and the warrants could have a dilutive effect on our earnings per share to the extent the price of our Class A stock during a given measurement period exceeds the respective exercise prices of those instruments. The call options are excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per share as their impact is anti-dilutive.

13

Table of Contents

2016 Notes

The 2016 Notes carried an interest rate at issuance of 6.60%, with an interest step up feature dependent on their credit rating. On November 13, 2008, Moody’s Investor Services, Inc. (Moody’s) downgraded the credit rating from “Ba1” to “Ba3.” This downgrade increased the interest rate from 7.35% to 7.85%, effective beginning with the six-month interest payment due April 1, 2009.

On August 19, 2010, Standard & Poor’s upgraded the credit rating from “BB” to “BB+.” On September 2, 2010, Moody’s upgraded the credit rating from “Ba3” to “Ba2.” These upgrades decreased the interest rate on the 2016 Notes from 7.85% to 7.35%, effective beginning with the six-month interest payment due October 1, 2010.

GO Zone Tax-Exempt Bonds

In October 2008, Dynamic Fuels received $100 million in proceeds from the sale of Gulf Opportunity Zone tax-exempt bonds made available by the federal government to the regions affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. These floating rate bonds are due October 1, 2033. In November 2008, we entered into an interest rate swap related to these bonds to mitigate our interest rate risk on a portion of the bonds for five years. We also issued a letter of credit as a guarantee for the entire bond issuance. The proceeds from the bond issuance could only be used towards the construction of the Dynamic Fuels’ facility.

Debt Covenants

Our revolving credit facility contains affirmative and negative covenants that, among other things, may limit or restrict our ability to: create liens and encumbrances; incur debt; merge, dissolve, liquidate or consolidate; make acquisitions and investments; dispose of or transfer assets; pay dividends or make other payments in respect of our capital stock; amend material documents; change the nature of our business; make certain payments of debt; engage in certain transactions with affiliates; and enter into sale/leaseback or hedging transactions, in each case, subject to certain qualifications and exceptions. If availability under this facility is less than the greater of 15% of the commitments and $150 million, we will be required to maintain a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio.

Our 2014 Notes also contain affirmative and negative covenants that, among other things, may limit or restrict our ability to: incur additional debt and issue preferred stock; make certain investments and restricted payments; create liens; create restrictions on distributions from subsidiaries; engage in specified sales of assets and subsidiary stock; enter into transactions with affiliates; enter new lines of business; engage in consolidation, mergers and acquisitions; and engage in certain sale/leaseback transactions.

We were in compliance with all debt covenants at January 1, 2011.

14

Table of Contents

NOTE 9: FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The fair value hierarchy contains three levels as follows:

Level 1 — Unadjusted quoted prices available in active markets for the identical assets or liabilities at the measurement date.

Level 2 — Other observable inputs available at the measurement date, other than quoted prices included in Level 1, either directly or indirectly, including:

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs that cannot be corroborated by observable market data and reflect the use of significant management judgment. These values are generally determined using pricing models for which the assumptions utilize management’s estimates of market participant assumptions.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The fair value hierarchy requires the use of observable market data when available. In instances where the inputs used to measure fair value fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy, the fair value measurement has been determined based on the lowest level input significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Our assessment of the significance of a particular item to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, including the consideration of inputs specific to the asset or liability. The following tables set forth by level within the fair value hierarchy our financial assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis according to the valuation techniques we used to determine their fair values (in millions):

15

Table of Contents

(a) Our derivative assets and liabilities are presented in our Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets on a net basis. We net derivative assets and liabilities, including cash collateral, when a legally enforceable master netting arrangement exists between the counterparty to a derivative contract and us. At January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, we had posted $68 million and $35 million of cash collateral and held $7 million and $3 million cash collateral with various counterparties, respectively.

The following table provides a reconciliation between the beginning and ending balance of debt securities measured at fair value on a recurring basis in the table above that used significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) (in millions):

The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of each class of financial instrument:

Derivative Assets and Liabilities: Our derivatives, including commodities, foreign exchange forward contracts and an interest rate swap, primarily include exchange-traded and over-the-counter contracts which are further described in Note 3: Derivative Financial Instruments. We record our commodity derivatives at fair value using quoted market prices adjusted for credit and non-performance risk and internal models that use as their basis readily observable market inputs including current and forward commodity market prices. Our foreign exchange forward contracts are recorded at fair value based on quoted prices and spot and forward currency prices adjusted for credit and non-performance risk. Our interest rate swap is recorded at fair value based on quoted LIBOR swap rates adjusted for credit and non-performance risk. We classify these instruments in Level 2 when quoted market prices can be corroborated utilizing observable current and forward commodity market prices on active exchanges, observable market transactions of spot currency rates and forward currency prices or observable benchmark market rates at commonly quoted intervals.

Available for Sale Securities: Our investments in marketable debt securities are classified as available-for-sale and are included in Other Assets in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. These investments, which are generally long-term in nature with maturities ranging up to 46 years, are reported at fair value based on pricing models and quoted market prices adjusted for credit and non-performance risk. We classify our investments in U.S. government and agency debt securities as Level 2 as fair value is generally estimated using discounted cash flow models that are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including time value and yield curve as well as other readily available relevant economic measures. We classify certain corporate, asset-backed and other debt securities as Level 3 as there is limited activity or less observable inputs into proprietary valuation models, including estimated prepayment, default and recovery rates on the underlying portfolio or structured investment vehicle.

Additionally, we have eight million shares of Syntroleum Corporation common stock and 4.25 million warrants, which expire in early fiscal 2013, to purchase an equivalent amount of Syntroleum Corporation common stock at an average price of $2.87. We record the shares and warrants in Other Assets in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets at fair value based on quoted market prices. We classify the shares as Level 1 as the fair value is based on unadjusted quoted prices available in active markets. We classify the warrants as Level 2 as fair value can be corroborated based on observable market data.

16

Table of Contents

Unrealized holding gains (losses), net of tax, are excluded from earnings and reported in OCI until the security is settled or sold. On a quarterly basis, we evaluate whether losses related to our available-for-sale securities are temporary in nature. Losses on equity securities are recognized in earnings if the decline in value is judged to be other than temporary. If losses related to our debt securities are determined to be other than temporary, the loss would be recognized in earnings if we intend, or more likely than not will be required, to sell the security prior to recovery. For debt securities in which we have the intent and ability to hold until maturity, losses determined to be other than temporary would remain in OCI, other than expected credit losses which are recognized in earnings. We consider many factors in determining whether a loss is temporary, including the length of time and extent to which the fair value has been below cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer and our ability and intent to hold the investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery. We recognized no other than temporary impairments in earnings for the three month periods ending January 1, 2011, and January 2, 2010. No other than temporary losses were deferred in OCI as of January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010.

Deferred Compensation Assets: We maintain non-qualified deferred compensation plans for certain executives and other highly compensated employees. Investments are maintained within a trust and include money market funds, mutual funds and life insurance policies. The cash surrender value of the life insurance policies is invested primarily in mutual funds. The investments are recorded at fair value based on quoted market prices and are included in Other Assets in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. We classify the investments which have observable market prices in active markets in Level 1 as these are generally publicly-traded mutual funds. The remaining deferred compensation assets are classified in Level 2, as fair value can be corroborated based on observable market data. Realized and unrealized gains (losses) on deferred compensation are included in earnings.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis

In addition to assets and liabilities that are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis, we record assets and liabilities at fair value on a nonrecurring basis. Generally, assets are recorded at fair value on a nonrecurring basis as a result of impairment charges. We did not have any significant measurements of assets or liabilities at fair value on a nonrecurring basis subsequent to their initial recognition during the three months ended January 1, 2011, and January 2, 2010.

Other Financial Instruments

Fair values for debt are based on quoted market prices or published forward interest rate curves. Fair value and carrying value for our debt were as follows (in millions):

For all of our other financial instruments, the estimated fair value approximated the carrying value at January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010. The carrying value of our other financial instruments, not otherwise disclosed herein, included notes receivable, which approximated fair value at January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010. Notes receivable were recorded in Other Current Assets in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets and totaled $50 million and $49 million at January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, respectively. The fair values were determined using pricing models for which the assumptions utilize management’s estimates of market participant assumptions.

17

Table of Contents

NOTE 10: CONTINGENCIES

We are involved in various claims and legal proceedings. We routinely assess the likelihood of adverse judgments or outcomes to those matters, as well as ranges of probable losses, to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. We record accruals for such matters to the extent that we conclude a loss is probable and the financial impact, should an adverse outcome occur, is reasonably estimable. Such accruals are reflected in the Company’s Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements. In our opinion, we have made appropriate and adequate accruals for these matters and believe the probability of a material loss beyond the amounts accrued to be remote; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if accruals are not adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Listed below are certain claims made against the Company and/or our subsidiaries for which the potential exposure is considered material to the Company’s Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims made and intend to vigorously defend these matters.

Several private lawsuits are pending against us alleging that we failed to compensate poultry plant employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These lawsuits include DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (DeAsencio), filed on August 22, 2000, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This matter involves similar allegations that employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas. They seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict and final judgment entered in our favor on June 22, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. We sought rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 5, 2007. The United States Supreme Court denied our petition for a writ of certiorari on June 9, 2008. The new trial date has not been set.

The other private lawsuits referred to above are Sheila Ackles, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (N. Dist. Alabama, October 23, 2006); McCluster, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M. Dist. Georgia, December 11, 2006); Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, December 21, 2006); Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. and Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, December 22, 2006); Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (S.D. Mississippi, February 9, 2007); Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Oklahoma, March 1, 2007); Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Arkansas, March 2, 2007); Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, March 5, 2007); Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, May 23, 2007) (the “Williams Case”). Similar to DeAsencio, each of these matters involves allegations that employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek or have sought to act as class representatives on behalf of all current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. On April 6, 2007, we filed a motion for transfer of the above named actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which was granted on August 17, 2007. These cases and five other cases subsequently filed involving the same allegations, Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Tennessee, January 30, 2008); Maldonado, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Tennessee, January 31, 2008); White, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Texas, February 1, 2008); Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Missouri, February 2, 2008); and Leak, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. North Carolina, February 6, 2008), were transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Georgia, In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation (“MDL Proceedings”). On January 2, 2008, the Court issued a Joint Scheduling and Case Management Order. This order granted Conditional Class Certification and called for notice to be given to potential putative class members via a third party administrator. The potential class members had until April 18, 2008, to “opt in” to the class. Approximately 13,800 employees and former employees filed their consents to “opt-in” to the class. On October 15, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for equitable tolling, which, if granted, would have extended the time period in which the plaintiffs could have sought damages. However, in addition to the consents already obtained, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to obtain corrected and reaffirmed opt-in consents that were previously filed in the matter of M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (N.D. Alabama, June 22, 1999). The deadline for filing these consents was December 31, 2008, and according to the third party administrator, approximately 4,000 reaffirmed consents were filed, some or all of which may be in addition to the approximately 13,800 consents filed previously. The parties have completed discovery at eight of our facilities and our corporate headquarters in Springdale, Arkansas. In July 2009 we filed class decertification motions for the eight facilities involved in discovery. We also filed

18

Table of Contents

Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for these eight facilities. Oral arguments for these motions occurred on February 3, 2010, and, on March 16, 2010, the Court granted partial summary judgment with respect to two unionized facilities and denied the remaining motions. The Court concluded that the activities at these two facilities met the definition of “clothes changing” under Section 203(o) of the FLSA and that the time engaged in pre- and post-shift donning and doffing is not compensable. The Court did not rule on whether Section 203(o) activity could begin the continuous work day, thereby making all walking, sanitizing and washing time after that activity compensable. We then filed a motion for certification of a permissive appeal on whether Section 203(o) activity can start the continuous workday and whether washing required clothing items is covered by Section 203(o). On April 23, 2010, the Court granted us permission to appeal these issues to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court also retained jurisdiction with respect to the eight facilities while staying proceedings with respect to seven. It then scheduled trial in the Williams Case for October 12, 2010. On April 16, 2010, the Court lifted a previously entered stay of discovery with respect to our remaining 32 facilities subject to the MDL Proceedings and ordered the parties to meet, confer, and report to the Court any discovery agreements and disputed issues within 45 days. On June 7, 2010, the Court issued a scheduling order which set the close of discovery for the remaining 32 facilities for May 31, 2012. On September 22, 2010, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay further proceedings in the MDL Proceedings, including the trial in the Williams case, in order to allow the parties an opportunity to explore settlement. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to lift the stay, and the Court granted this motion on November 15, 2010. The parties have reached a settlement agreement for the back pay liability (exclusive of attorneys’ fees) in the Williams case, which was set for trial on February 14, 2011. On January 21, 2011, the parties notified the court of their intention to file a motion for approval of the settlement agreement and a motion to file the agreement under seal. As part of the settlement, the parties also agreed to stay further MDL proceedings to allow the parties to continue to explore settlement of the remaining lawsuits.

We have pending eleven separate wage and hour actions involving Tyson Fresh Meats Inc.’s plants located in Lexington, Nebraska (Lopez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., D. Nebraska, June 30, 2006), Garden City and Emporia, Kansas (Garcia, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Kansas, May 15, 2006), Storm Lake, Iowa (Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D. Iowa, February 6, 2007), Columbus Junction, Iowa (Robinson, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, September 12, 2007), Joslin, Illinois (Murray, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., C.D. Illinois, January 2, 2008), Dakota City, Nebraska (Gomez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., D. Nebraska, January 16, 2008), Madison, Nebraska (Acosta, et al. v Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., D. Nebraska, February 29, 2008), Perry and Waterloo, Iowa (Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008); Council Bluffs, Iowa (Maxwell (f/k/a Salazar), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, April 29, 2008); Logansport, Indiana (Carter, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., N.D. Indiana, April 29, 2008); and Goodlettsville, Tennessee (Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc., and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., M.D. Tennessee, February 6, 2009). The actions allege we failed to pay employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for the time it takes to change into protective work uniforms, safety equipment and other sanitary and protective clothing worn by employees, and for walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas in violation of the FLSA and analogous state laws. The plaintiffs seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. Each case is proceeding in its jurisdiction. On January 31, 2011, the Garcia court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Trials in the Garcia, Lopez, Bouaphakeo and Robinson cases are scheduled for March 1, 2011, May 16, 2011, September 7, 2011 and October 31, 2011, respectively.

We also have pending one wage and hour action involving our Tyson Prepared Foods plant located in Jefferson, Wisconsin (Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., Jefferson County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court, October 20, 2010) The plaintiffs allege that employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing and the associated time it takes to walk to and from their workstations post-donning and pre-doffing of protective and sanitary clothing. Six named plaintiffs seek to act as state law class representatives on behalf of all current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On June 19, 2005, the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Environment of the State of Oklahoma filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against us, three of our subsidiaries and six other poultry integrators. This complaint was subsequently amended. As amended, the complaint asserts a number of state and federal causes of action including, but not limited to, counts under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and state-law public nuisance theories. The amended complaint asserts that defendants and certain contract growers who are not named in the amended complaint polluted the surface waters, groundwater and associated drinking water supplies of the Illinois River Watershed (“IRW”) through the land application of poultry litter. Oklahoma asserts that this alleged pollution has also caused extensive injury to the environment (including soils and sediments) of the IRW and that the defendants have been unjustly enriched. Oklahoma’s claims cover the entire IRW, which encompasses more than one million acres of land and the natural resources (including lakes and waterways) contained therein. Oklahoma seeks wide-ranging relief, including injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $800 million, an unspecified amount in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

19

Table of Contents

We and the other defendants have denied liability, asserted various defenses, and filed a third-party complaint that asserts claims against other persons and entities whose activities may have contributed to the pollution alleged in the amended complaint. The district court has stayed proceedings on the third party complaint pending resolution of Oklahoma’s claims against the defendants. On October 31, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join the Cherokee Nation as a required party or, in the alternative, for judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing. This motion was granted in part and denied in part on July 22, 2009. In its ruling, the district court dismissed Oklahoma’s claims for cost recovery and for natural resources damages under CERCLA and for unjust enrichment under Oklahoma common law. This ruling also narrowed the scope of Oklahoma’s remaining claims by dismissing all damage claims under its causes of action for Oklahoma common law nuisance, federal common law nuisance, and Oklahoma common law trespass, leaving only its claims for injunctive relief for trial. On August 18, 2009, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Oklahoma’s claims for violations of the Oklahoma Registered Poultry Feeding Operations Act. Oklahoma later voluntarily dismissed the remainder of this claim. On September 2, 2009, the Cherokee Nation filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit. Their motion to intervene was denied on September 15, 2009, and the Cherokee Nation filed a notice of appeal of that ruling in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 17, 2009. A non-jury trial of the case began on September 24, 2009. At the close of Oklahoma’s case-in-chief, the Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss claims based on RCRA, nuisance per se, and health risks related to bacteria. The defense rested its case on January 13, 2010, and closing arguments were held on February 11, 2010. On September 21, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Cherokee Nation’s motion to intervene. On October 6, 2010 the Cherokee Nation and the State of Oklahoma filed a petition for rehearing or en banc review seeking reconsideration of this ruling. The Court of Appeals denied this petition.

In September 2009, the National Water Commission (“CONAGUA”), an agency of the Mexican government’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, sent an observation letter to our Mexican subsidiary, Tyson de Mexico (“TdM”), with respect to TdM’s water usage at certain water wells that are part of its poultry production operations. This letter was in response to TdM’s previous submission to CONAGUA of requested information relating to water usage from these wells from 2004 to 2007. In the observation letter, which contains an initial finding of facts, CONAGUA alleges that TdM may have failed to (i) report accurate water volume usage, (ii) install measuring equipment, (iii) provide evidence of water use exemptions, (iv) pay for applicable usage, and (v) properly measure water volume, all as required under water deeds held by TdM. On October 15, 2009, TdM responded to CONAGUA, denying the allegations as presented. On April 13, 2010, the regional CONAGUA office delivered its final determinations to TdM on this matter and claimed that TdM owed the agency approximately 55.9 million pesos (approximately US$4.6 million) for certain water usage during the period in question. TdM has appealed the regional office’s final determinations to the administrative courts of CONAGUA in Mexico City.

On May 8, 2008, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of our employees in the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma styled Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (the “Armstrong Case”). The lawsuit was brought by a group of 52 poultry growers who allege that certain of our live production practices in Oklahoma constitute fraudulent inducement, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, gross negligence, unconscionability, violations of the Oklahoma Business Sales Act, Deceptive Trade Practice violations, violations of the Consumer Protection Act, and conversion, as well as other theories of recovery. The plaintiffs sought damages in an unspecified amount. On October 30, 2009, 20 additional growers represented by the same attorney filed a lawsuit against us in the same court asserting the same or similar claims, which is styled Clardy, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (the “Clardy Case”). In both of these cases we have denied all allegations of wrongdoing. In June 2009, the plaintiffs in the Armstrong case requested an expedited trial date for a smaller group of plaintiffs they claimed were facing imminent financial peril. The Court ultimately severed a group of 10 plaintiffs from the Armstrong Case, and a trial began on March 15, 2010. There were numerous irregularities and rulings during the trial which we believe to have been legally erroneous and highly prejudicial to our right to a fair trial. On April 1, 2010, the jury returned a verdict against us and one of our employees, and on April 2, 2010, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict against us. After a dispute caused by inconsistencies between the multiple verdict forms completed by the jury and apparent confusion by the jury as to how to complete those verdict forms, the Court entered a final judgment in the amount of $8,655,735. Subsequent to the trial, the presiding judge disqualified from the cases and the Oklahoma Supreme Court appointed a new judge to the cases. The Company filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict. Those motions were denied. The Company has appealed the verdict to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. We filed a motion with the trial court to change venue from McCurtain County on the grounds that the numerous irregularities that occurred during the trial, coupled with the attendant publicity, resulted in community bias which would prevent the Company from receiving a fair trial in McCurtain County. The trial court granted this motion and the case will be transferred to Choctaw County, Oklahoma. We filed another motion, which the trial court also granted, to stay all future trials of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Armstrong Case and the Clardy Case pending the outcome of the appeal of the first trial. We also filed a motion to sever all of the plaintiffs’ claims into individual cases, which was heard on January 25, 2010. This motion was denied, but the Court took under advisement the sizes and groupings of plaintiffs in future trials. We believe numerous and substantial legal errors were made by the Court during the trial and that a review of and guidance on these issues by the appellate court could have a substantial impact on the outcome of future trials in the Armstrong Case and the Clardy Case.

20

Table of Contents

In November 2006, the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors engaged outside counsel to conduct a review of certain payments that had been made by one of our subsidiaries in Mexico, including payments to individuals employed by Mexican governmental bodies. The payments, the amount of which we believe are immaterial, were discontinued in November 2006. We voluntarily informed the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice of our review and preliminary findings. As part of our commitment to full cooperation with the government’s review of this matter, we have held meetings with the relevant governmental authorities, which we believe have resulted in significant progress towards resolution of this matter. We do not expect this resolution to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 11: INCOME TAXES

The effective tax rate was 34.0% and 32.9% for the first quarter of fiscal years 2011 and 2010, respectively. The effective tax rate for the first quarter of fiscal 2011 was impacted by such items as state income taxes, the domestic production deduction, general business credits and reduction of a valuation allowance related to an equity method investment.

Unrecognized tax benefits were $192 million and $184 million at January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, respectively. The amount of unrecognized tax benefits, if recognized, that would impact our effective tax rate was $155 million and $150 million at January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, respectively. The change in unrecognized tax benefits did not have a material effect on the effective tax rate.

We classify interest and penalties on unrecognized tax benefits as income tax expense. At January 1, 2011, and October 2, 2010, before tax benefits, we had $65 million and $64 million, respectively, of accrued interest and penalties on unrecognized tax benefits.

We are subject to income tax examinations for U.S. federal income taxes for fiscal years 1998 through 2009, and for foreign, state and local income taxes for fiscal years 2001 through 2009. Within the next twelve months, tax audit resolutions could reduce unrecognized tax benefits either because tax positions are sustained on audit or because we agree to their disallowance; however, the range of the possible change cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

21