SEABOARD CORP /DE/ Commitments Disclosure

Note 8 − Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Seaboard is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business and otherwise, including those matters described below.

Seaboard accrues liabilities for loss contingencies when it is deemed probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If a range of loss is estimated, and some amount within that range appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within that range, then that amount is accrued. If no amount within the range can be identified as a better estimate than any other amount, Seaboard accrues the minimum amount in the range. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, or the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no accrual has been made.

Seaboard has made appropriate and adequate accruals for loss contingencies where necessary as of December 31, 2025. Substantially all of Seaboard’s contingencies are subject to uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, Seaboard is unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued. Seaboard’s assessments, which result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties, are based on estimates and assumptions deemed reasonable by management, including an expected probable loss associated with settling or otherwise resolving such contingencies. These estimates and assumptions may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might change such estimates and assumptions.

At the end of each reporting period, Seaboard reviews information with respect to its legal proceedings, claims and other related loss contingencies and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible loss or range of loss based on such reviews. Costs for defending claims are expensed as incurred. Any receivable for insurance recoveries is recorded separately from the corresponding liability, and only if recovery is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable.

Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the matters described below, and it intends to defend them vigorously, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and there can be no assurances as to their outcomes. Seaboard does not currently believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business or its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, Seaboard could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise its expectations regarding the outcome of matters, which could have a material adverse effect in the particular annual or quarterly period in which the amounts are accrued or paid.

Helms-Burton Act Litigation

Subsequent to the fourth quarter of 2025, Seaboard reached a settlement to resolve the lawsuits filed by an individual, Odette Blanco de Fernandez and/or the heirs and estates of four of her siblings against (a) Seaboard Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”), and (b) Seaboard Marine Ltd. (“Seaboard Marine”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Florida District Court”), one such lawsuit being filed in such court on December 20, 2020 and a second lawsuit being filed in such court on January 12, 2026. The complaints in each lawsuit make claims under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act.  

Pork Price-Fixing Antitrust Litigation

On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the “Minnesota District Court”) against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC (“Seaboard Foods”) and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. Additional class action complaints with similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed in the Minnesota District Court, and additional actions by standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and

combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating output and limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats, Inc. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motions to Certify the Classes with respect to all three classes.

Additional standalone “direct action” plaintiffs filed similar actions in federal courts throughout the country, several of which named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant. Those actions filed in courts other than the District of Minnesota have been conditionally transferred to Minnesota for pretrial proceedings pursuant to an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The states of New Mexico and Alaska filed civil cases in state court against substantially the same defendants, including Seaboard Foods and Seaboard Corporation, based on substantially similar allegations.

On June 12, 2023, Seaboard Foods entered into a settlement agreement with the putative direct purchaser plaintiff class (the “DPP Class”). The settlement with the DPP Class does not cover the claims of (a) “direct action” plaintiffs (“DPPs”) that opted-out of Seaboard’s settlement with the DPP Class and are continuing direct actions; (b) other direct purchasers that opted-out of the settlement (“Other Opt-Outs”) and may in the future file actions against Seaboard; (c) the Commercial and Industrial Indirect Purchaser Class (the “CIIP Class”); or (d) the End User Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (the “EUCP Class”). Subsequent to the settlement with the DPP Class, Seaboard settled with some of the DPPs and Other Opt-Outs. Seaboard continues to litigate against the DPPs it has not settled with, but Seaboard will consider additional reasonable settlements where they are available. On June 18, 2024 and June 20, 2024, Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the CIIP Class and the EUCP Class. The settlement with the EUCP Class remains subject to court approval. Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the state of Alaska on August 7, 2024, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on January 2, 2025, and the State of New Mexico on September 26, 2025. Seaboard believes that these settlements were in the best interests of Seaboard and its stakeholders in order to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation.

On March 31, 2025, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Absent reconsideration or another change in circumstance, cases pending in the Minnesota District Court will proceed to trial and cases pending in other jurisdictions will be remanded to the courts in which the actions were brought. Seaboard has settled all actions originally brought in the Minnesota District Court. It is uncertain when the Minnesota District Court will remand the cases, including Seaboard’s, pending in other jurisdictions.

Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in these matters and intends to vigorously defend any matters not resolved by settlement. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties and, if unfavorable, could result in a material liability.

Cereoil and Nolston Litigation

During the fourth quarter of 2025, Seaboard entered into settlement agreements to resolve: (a) the suits filed in 2018 by the bankruptcy trustees (the “Trustees”) for Cereoil Uruguay S.A. (“Cereoil”) and Nolston S.A. in the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance in Uruguay naming as parties Seaboard Corporation and its subsidiaries, Seaboard Overseas Limited and Seaboard Uruguay Holdings Ltd., and two individuals employed by Seaboard who served as directors at the behest of Seaboard, and the Chief Financial Officer of Cereoil, an employee of Seaboard who also served at the behest of Seaboard, and (b) the suit filed in 2021 by a creditor in the Cereoil bankruptcy proceeding pending in Uruguay, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Seaboard Corporation. 

Commitments

As of December 31, 2025, Seaboard had various non-cancelable commitments under contractual agreements. The purchase commitments included below qualify for the normal purchase normal sale exception under U.S. GAAP and are not recorded as derivatives on the consolidated balance sheets.