In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Dole Food Company, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries (“Dole” or the “Company”) include all adjustments necessary, which are of a normal recurring nature, to present fairly Dole’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Dole operates under a 52/53-week year. The quarters ended June 20, 2009 and June 14, 2008 are twelve weeks in duration. For a summary of significant accounting policies and additional information relating to Dole’s financial statements, refer to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of Dole’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Form 10-K”) for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2009.

Interim results are subject to seasonal variations and are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for a full year. Dole’s operations are sensitive to a number of factors including weather-related phenomena and their effects on industry volumes, prices, product quality and costs. Operations are also sensitive to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates in both sourcing and selling locations as well as economic crises and security risks.

In March 2003, Dole completed a going-private merger transaction (“going-private merger transaction”). The privatization resulted from the acquisition by David H. Murdock, Dole’s Chairman, of the approximately 76% of the shares of common stock of Dole Food Company, Inc. that he and his affiliates did not already own. As a result of the transaction, Dole became wholly-owned by Mr. Murdock through DHM Holding Company, Inc.

Certain amounts in the prior year financial statements and related footnotes have been reclassified to conform to the 2009 presentation. Dole adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“FAS”) No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements (“FAS 160”) during the first quarter of 2009 (see Note 2 for further information).

During June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FAS No. 168, FASB Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, a replacement of FASB Statement No. 162 (“FAS 168”), which establishes the FASB Accounting Standards Codification as the single official source of authoritative US GAAP (other than guidance issued by the SEC), superseding existing FASB, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Emerging Issues Task Force, and related literature. FAS 168 will become effective during Dole’s third quarter of 2009. Dole expects that the adoption of FAS 168 will not have an impact on its results of operations or financial position.

During June 2009, the FASB issued FAS No. 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R) (“FAS 167”), which changes the approach in determining the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity (“VIE”) and requires companies to more frequently assess whether they must consolidate VIEs. FAS 167 is effective for annual periods beginning after November 15, 2009. Dole is evaluating the impact, if any, the adoption of FAS 167 will have on its consolidated financial statements.

During May 2009, the FASB issued FAS No. 165, Subsequent Events (“FAS 165”), to establish general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before the financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. FAS 165 requires the disclosure of the date through which an entity has evaluated subsequent events and the basis for that date. Dole adopted FAS 165 during its second fiscal quarter and it had no impact on Dole’s results of operations or financial position. In the preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements, Dole evaluated subsequent events after the balance sheet date of June 20, 2009 through August 14, 2009.

During April 2009, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, Interim Financial Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments (“FSP”), which amends FASB Statement No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments, to require disclosures about the fair value of financial

During March 2008, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 161, Disclosures About Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities — an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 (“FAS 161”). This new standard requires enhanced disclosures for derivative instruments, including those used in hedging activities. Dole adopted FAS 161 at the beginning of its first fiscal quarter of 2009. The disclosures required by FAS 161 are included in Note 13 to the condensed consolidated financial statements and had no impact on Dole’s results of operations or financial position.

During December 2007, the FASB issued FAS 160. FAS 160 establishes accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. Dole adopted the provisions of FAS 160 as of the beginning of its 2009 fiscal year. FAS 160 is to be applied prospectively as of the beginning of 2009 except for the presentation and disclosure requirements which are to be applied retrospectively. The condensed consolidated financial statements now conform to the presentation required under FAS 160. Other than the change in presentation of noncontrolling interests, the adoption of FAS 160 had no impact on Dole’s results of operations or financial position.

During December 2007, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141 (revised 2007), Business Combinations (“FAS 141R”). FAS 141R provides revised guidance for recognizing and measuring assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination. FAS 141R will be applied prospectively to business combinations with acquisition dates on or after January 1, 2009. As a result of the adoption, changes to valuation allowances and unrecognized tax benefits established in business combinations will be recognized in earnings.

Included in other income (expense), net in Dole’s condensed consolidated statements of operations for the quarters and half years ended June 20, 2009 and June 14, 2008 are the following items:

Refer to Note 13 — Derivative Financial Instruments for further discussion regarding Dole’s cross currency swap.

During the second quarter of 2008, Dole approved and committed to a formal plan to divest its fresh-cut flowers operations (“Flowers transaction”). The first phase of the Flowers transaction was completed during the first quarter of 2009 (refer to Note 12 — Assets Held-For-Sale). In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2007, Dole approved and committed to a formal plan to divest its citrus and pistachio operations (“Citrus”) located in central

For all periods presented, noncontrolling interests were not material.

Dole recorded $17 million of income tax expense on $135.7 million of pretax income from continuing operations for the half year ended June 20, 2009. Income tax expense included interest expense of $1.2 million (net of associated income tax benefits of approximately $0.3 million) related to Dole’s unrecognized tax benefits. An income tax benefit of $60.2 million was recorded for the half year ended June 14, 2008 which included $61.1 million for the favorable settlement of the federal income tax audit for the years 1995 to 2001. Excluding the impact of the favorable settlement, income tax expense was $0.9 million, which included interest expense of $2.1 million (net of associated income tax benefits of approximately $0.7 million) related to Dole’s unrecognized tax benefits. Dole’s effective tax rate varies significantly from period to period due to the level, mix and seasonality of earnings generated in its various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions.

Under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial Reporting (“APB 28”), and FASB Interpretation No. 18, Accounting for Income Taxes in Interim Periods (“FIN 18”), Dole is required to adjust its

For the periods presented, Dole’s income tax provision differs from the U.S. federal statutory rate applied to Dole’s pretax income primarily due to operations in foreign jurisdictions that are taxed at a rate lower than the U.S. federal statutory rate offset by the accrual for uncertain tax positions.

Dole recognizes accrued interest and penalties related to its unrecognized tax benefits as a component of income taxes in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Accrued interest and penalties before tax benefits were $27.5 million and $26.9 million at June 20, 2009 and January 3, 2009, respectively, and are included as a component of other long-term liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. Dole Food Company, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and various states and foreign jurisdictions. With few exceptions, Dole is no longer subject to U.S. federal, state and local, or non-U.S. income tax examinations by tax authorities for years prior to 2001.

Income Tax Audits:  Dole believes its tax positions comply with the applicable tax laws and that it is adequately provided for all tax related matters. Matters raised upon audit may involve substantial amounts and could result in material cash payments if resolved unfavorably; however, management does not believe that any material payments will be made related to these matters within the next twelve months. Management considers it unlikely that the resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Dole’s results of operations.

Internal Revenue Service Audit:  Dole is currently under examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the tax years 2002-2005 and it is anticipated that the examination will be completed by the end of 2009.

Although the timing and ultimate resolution of any issues that might arise from the ongoing IRS examination are highly uncertain, at this time, Dole does not anticipate that total unrecognized tax benefits will significantly change within the next twelve months.

The major classes of inventories were as follows:

Goodwill has been allocated to Dole’s reporting segments as follows:

Details of Dole’s intangible assets were as follows:

During May 2009, Dole acquired all of the assets of Distrifruit, a distributor of fresh fruit located in Romania, in exchange for trade receivables due from the seller. Dole acquired the assets primarily to obtain control and gain access over Distrifruit’s customer base in Romania. At the date of acquisition, the total fair value of the assets acquired was $10 million, consisting of $2.9 million of inventory and property, plant and equipment, net and $7.1 million of intangible assets. Dole expects to finalize its allocation of the acquisition during the third quarter of 2009. The revenues and earnings of Distrifruit from the acquisition date through June 20, 2009 were not material. Distrifruit revenues and earnings for the 2009 and 2008 fiscal years also were not material for pro forma disclosure.

Amortization expense of intangible assets totaled $0.9 million and $1 million for the quarters ended June 20, 2009 and June 14, 2008, respectively, and $1.7 million and $2 million for the half years ended June 20, 2009 and June 14, 2008, respectively.

As of June 20, 2009, the estimated remaining amortization expense associated with Dole’s intangible assets for the remainder of 2009 and in each of the next four fiscal years is as follows (in thousands):

Dole performed its annual impairment review of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets pursuant to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, during the second quarter of fiscal 2009. This review indicated no impairment to goodwill or any of Dole’s indefinite-lived intangible assets.

Notes payable and long-term debt consisted of the following amounts:

During the second quarter of 2009, Dole reclassified to current liabilities its $400 million 7.25% notes due June 2010 (“2010 Notes”). During the second quarter of 2009, Dole’s Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $95 million of the 2010 Notes. Dole subsequently repurchased $17 million and $20 million of the 2010 Notes during the second and third quarters of 2009, respectively.

Dole’s current plan is to offer senior secured notes during the third quarter of 2009. Dole plans to use the net proceeds from this offering, together with cash on hand and/or borrowings under the revolving credit facility, to redeem the bulk of the outstanding 2010 notes. Dole intends to redeem or repurchase any remaining 2010 notes during the third and/or fourth quarters of 2009 with cash on hand and/or borrowings under the revolving credit facility. A failure by Dole to timely redeem, repurchase or repay the 2010 Notes at or before maturity could lead to an event of default which would have a material adverse effect on Dole’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

On March 18, 2009, Dole completed the sale and issuance of $350 million aggregate principal amount of 13.875% Senior Secured Notes due March 2014 (“2014 Notes”) at a discount of $25 million. The 2014 Notes were sold to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and to persons outside the United States in compliance with Regulation S under the Securities Act. The sale was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. Interest on the 2014 Notes will be paid semiannually in arrears on March 15 and September 15 of each year, beginning on September 15, 2009. The 2014 Notes have the

In connection with these refinancing transactions, Dole amended its senior secured credit facilities, which amendments, among other things, permitted the issuance of new secured debt securities, increased the interest rate on the term and revolving credit facilities and added a leverage maintenance covenant.

In connection with the issuance of the 2014 Notes and the amendment of Dole’s senior secured credit facilities, Dole incurred debt issuance costs of $17.8 million. Debt issuance costs are capitalized and amortized into interest expense over the term of the underlying debt.

Dole wrote off $5.2 million of deferred debt issuance costs during the quarter ended March 28, 2009 resulting from the amendment of its senior secured credit facilities. This amendment was accounted for as an extinguishment of debt in accordance with EITF 96-19, Debtor’s Accounting for a Modification or Exchange of Debt Instruments. This write-off was recorded to other income (expense), net in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the half year ended June 20, 2009.

Dole amortized deferred debt issuance costs of $1.4 million and $2.3 million during the quarter and half year ended June 20, 2009, respectively. Dole amortized deferred debt issuance costs of $0.9 million and $1.9 million during the quarter and half year ended June 14, 2008.

As of June 20, 2009, the term loan facilities consisted of $175.3 million of Term Loan B and $653 million of Term Loan C. The term loan facilities bear interest, at Dole’s option, at a rate per annum equal to either (i) a base rate plus 3.5% to 4%; or (ii) LIBOR (subject to a minimum of 3%) plus 4.5% to 5%, in each case, based upon Dole’s senior secured leverage ratio. The weighted average variable interest rate at June 20, 2009 for Term Loan B and Term Loan C was 8.3%. The term loan facilities require quarterly principal payments, plus a balloon payment due in 2013. Dole has an interest rate swap to hedge future changes in interest rates and a cross currency swap to effectively lower the U.S. dollar fixed interest rate to a Japanese yen fixed interest rate on Term Loan C. Refer to Note 13 — Derivative Financial Instruments for additional information related to these instruments.

As of June 20, 2009, the asset based revolving credit facility (“ABL revolver”) borrowing base was $320 million. There were no amounts outstanding under the ABL revolver at June 20, 2009. The ABL revolver bears interest, at Dole’s option, at a rate per annum equal to either (i) a base rate plus 2% to 2.5%, or (ii) LIBOR plus 3% to 3.5%, in each case, based upon Dole’s historical borrowing availability under this facility. The ABL revolver matures in April 2011. After taking into account approximately $76.4 million of outstanding letters of credit issued under the ABL revolver, Dole had approximately $243.6 million available for borrowings as of June 20, 2009. In addition, Dole had approximately $97 million of letters of credit and bank guarantees outstanding under its $100 million pre-funded letter of credit facility as of June 20, 2009.

At June 20, 2009 and January 3, 2009, included in capital lease obligations were $64.1 million and $58.5 million, respectively, of vessel financing related to two vessel leases denominated in British pound sterling. The increase in the capital lease obligation was due to the strengthening of the British pound sterling against the

Provisions under the indentures governing Dole’s senior notes and debentures require Dole to comply with certain covenants. These covenants include limitations on, among other things, indebtedness, investments, loans to subsidiaries, employees and third parties, the issuance of guarantees and the payment of dividends. The ABL revolver contains a “springing covenant,” but that covenant has never been effective and would only become effective if the availability under the ABL revolver were to fall below $35 million for any eight consecutive business days, which it has never done during the life of such facility. At June 20, 2009, Dole had $243.6 million of availability under the ABL revolver.

In addition, as a result of the March 2009 amendment to Dole’s senior secured term facilities, Dole is now subject to a first priority senior secured leverage ratio that must be at or below 3.25 to 1.00 as of the last day of the fiscal quarters ending March 28, 2009 through October 10, 2009 and steps down to 3.00 to 1.00 as of the last day of the fiscal quarter ending January 2, 2010. At June 20, 2009, the first priority senior secured leverage ratio was less than 2.25 to 1.00.

A breach of a covenant or other provision in a debt instrument governing Dole’s current or future indebtedness or pursuant to certain debt instruments under which our parent and an affiliate of its majority stockholder are borrowers, could result in a default under that instrument and, due to cross-default and cross-acceleration provisions, could result in a default under Dole’s other debt instruments. Such debt instruments of our parent, currently $115 million, and an affiliate of its majority stockholder, currently $90 million, mature on March 3, 2010 and December 23, 2009, respectively. Upon the occurrence of an event of default under the senior secured credit facilities or other debt instrument, the lenders or holders of such other debt instruments could elect to declare all amounts outstanding to be immediately due and payable and terminate all commitments to extend further credit. If Dole were unable to repay those amounts, the lenders could proceed against the collateral granted to them, if any, to secure the indebtedness. If the lenders under Dole’s current indebtedness were to accelerate the payment of the indebtedness, Dole cannot give assurance that its assets or cash flow would be sufficient to repay in full its outstanding indebtedness, in which event Dole likely would seek reorganization or protection under bankruptcy or other, similar laws.

On June 22, 2009, Dole declared a dividend of $15 million to its parent, DHM Holding Company, Inc. Dole paid $7.5 million on June 23, 2009 and $2.5 million on July 20, 2009, and expects to pay the remaining $5.0 million prior to August 31, 2009. As a result of this dividend, Dole does not at present have the ability to declare future dividends, pursuant to the terms of its senior notes indentures and senior secured credit facilities.

The components of net periodic benefit cost for Dole’s U.S. and international pension plans and other postretirement benefit (“OPRB”) plans were as follows:

Dole has three reportable operating segments: fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and packaged foods. These reportable segments are managed separately due to differences in their products, production processes, distribution channels and customer bases.

Management evaluates and monitors segment performance primarily through, among other measures, earnings before interest expense and income taxes (“EBIT”). EBIT is calculated by adding interest expense and income taxes to income from continuing operations. Management believes that segment EBIT provides useful information for analyzing the underlying business results as well as allowing investors a means to evaluate the financial results of each segment in relation to Dole as a whole. EBIT is not defined under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net income or cash flow measures prepared in accordance with GAAP or as a measure of Dole’s profitability. Additionally, Dole’s computation of EBIT may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures computed by other companies, because not all companies calculate EBIT in the same fashion.

Revenues from external customers and EBIT for the reportable operating segments and corporate were as follows:

Dole’s equity earnings in unconsolidated subsidiaries, which have been included in EBIT in the table above, relate primarily to the fresh fruit operating segment.

Total assets for the three reportable operating segments, corporate and fresh-cut flowers were as follows:

Dole is a guarantor of indebtedness of some of its key fruit suppliers and other entities integral to Dole’s operations. At June 20, 2009, guarantees of $1.8 million consisted primarily of amounts advanced under third-party bank agreements to independent growers that supply Dole with product. Dole has not historically experienced any significant losses associated with these guarantees.

Dole issues letters of credit and bank guarantees through its ABL revolver and its pre-funded letter of credit facilities, and, in addition, separately through major banking institutions. Dole also provides insurance-company-issued bonds. These letters of credit, bank guarantees and insurance company bonds are required by certain regulatory authorities, suppliers and other operating agreements. As of June 20, 2009, total letters of credit, bank guarantees and bonds outstanding under these arrangements were $205.7 million, of which $97 million was issued under its pre-funded letter of credit facility.

Dole also provides various guarantees, mostly to foreign banks, in the course of it normal business operations to support the borrowings, leases and other obligations of its subsidiaries. Dole guaranteed $213.2 million of its subsidiaries’ obligations to their suppliers and other third parties as of June 20, 2009.

Dole has change of control agreements with certain key executives, under which severance payments and benefits would become payable in the event of specified terminations of employment in connection with a change of control (as defined) of Dole.

Dole is involved from time to time in claims and legal actions incidental to its operations, both as plaintiff and defendant. Dole has established what management currently believes to be adequate reserves for pending legal matters. These reserves are established as part of an ongoing worldwide assessment of claims and legal actions that takes into consideration such items as changes in the pending case load (including resolved and new matters), opinions of legal counsel, individual developments in court proceedings, changes in the law, changes in business focus, changes in the litigation environment, changes in opponent strategy and tactics, new developments as a result of ongoing discovery, and past experience in defending and settling similar claims. In the opinion of management, after consultation with outside counsel, the claims or actions to which Dole is a party are not expected to have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on Dole’s financial condition or results of operations.

DBCP Cases:  A significant portion of Dole’s legal exposure relates to lawsuits pending in the United States and in several foreign countries, alleging injury as a result of exposure to the agricultural chemical DBCP (1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane). DBCP was manufactured by several chemical companies including Dow and Shell and registered by the U.S. government for use on food crops. Dole and other growers applied DBCP on banana

Currently there are 245 lawsuits, in various stages of proceedings, alleging injury as a result of exposure to DBCP or seeking enforcement of Nicaragua judgments. In addition, there are 111 labor cases pending in Costa Rica under that country’s national insurance program.

Thirty of the 245 lawsuits are currently pending in various jurisdictions in the United States. On June 17, 2009, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Chaney formalized her April 23, 2009 oral ruling by issuing written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, formally ordering dismissal with prejudice of the two remaining lawsuits brought on behalf of Nicaraguan plaintiffs who had falsely claimed they were sterile as a result of exposure to DBCP on Dole-contracted Nicaraguan banana farms, finding that the plaintiffs, and certain of their attorneys, fabricated their claims, engaged in a long-running conspiracy to commit a fraud on the court, used threats of violence to frighten witnesses and suppress the truth, and conspired with corrupt Nicaraguan judges, depriving Dole and the other companies of due process. On June 9, 2009, the First Circuit Court of Hawaii dismissed the Patrickson case, which had involved ten plaintiffs from Honduras, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Guatemala, finding that their DBCP claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations. In seven cases pending in Los Angeles involving 672 claimants from Ivory Coast, where Dole did not operate when DBCP was in use, plaintiffs’ counsel, on July 17, 2009, has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record in response to a witness who has come forward alleging fraud. The remaining cases are pending in Latin America and the Philippines. Claimed damages in DBCP cases worldwide total approximately $44.2 billion, with lawsuits in Nicaragua representing approximately 88% of this amount. Typically in these cases Dole is a joint defendant with the major DBCP manufacturers. Except as described below, none of these lawsuits has resulted in a verdict or judgment against Dole.

One case pending in Los Angeles Superior Court with 12 Nicaraguan plaintiffs initially resulted in verdicts which totaled approximately $5 million in damages against Dole in favor of six of the plaintiffs. As a result of the court’s March 7, 2008 favorable rulings on Dole’s post-verdict motions, including, importantly, the court’s decision striking down punitive damages in the case on U.S. Constitutional grounds, the damages against Dole were reduced to $1.58 million in total compensatory awards to four of the plaintiffs; and the court granted Dole’s motion for a new trial as to the claims of one of the plaintiffs. On July 7, 2009, the Second District Court Appeals issued an order to show cause why this $1.58 million judgment should not be vacated and judgment be entered in defendants’ favor on the grounds that the judgment was procured through fraud. Plaintiffs are to provide their response to the order to show cause to the trial court within 30 days of the issuance of the order. In that order, the Court of Appeals stated that the trial court need not hold a hearing to decide whether the judgment was procured by fraud, but instead can rely on the record that was presented in support of Dole’s request to have the case sent back to the trial court.

In Nicaragua, 196 cases are currently filed (of which 20 are active) in various courts throughout the country, all but one of which were brought pursuant to Law 364, an October 2000 Nicaraguan statute that contains substantive and procedural provisions that Nicaragua’s Attorney General formally opined are unconstitutional. In October 2003, the Supreme Court of Nicaragua issued an advisory opinion, not connected with any litigation, that Law 364 is constitutional. Thirty-two cases have resulted in judgments in Nicaragua: $489.4 million (nine cases consolidated with 468 claimants) on December 11, 2002; $82.9 million (one case with 58 claimants) on February 25, 2004; $15.7 million (one case with 20 claimants) on May 25, 2004; $4 million (one case with four claimants) on May 25,

Of the 20 active cases currently pending in civil courts in Nicaragua, all have been brought under Law 364 except for one. In all of the active cases where the proceeding has reached the appropriate stage (7 of 20 cases), Dole has sought to have the cases returned to the United States. In three of the cases where Dole has sought return to the United States, the courts have denied Dole’s request and Dole has appealed that decision. Dole’s requests remain pending in the other four cases.

The claimants’ attempted enforcement of the December 11, 2002 judgment for $489.4 million in the United States resulted in a dismissal with prejudice of that action by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 20, 2003. The claimants have voluntarily dismissed their appeal of that decision, which was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Defendants’ motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel is still pending before the Court of Appeals in that case. A Special Master appointed by the Court of Appeals has recommended that Plaintiffs’ counsel be ordered to pay Defendants’ fees and costs up to $130,000 each to Dole and the other two defendants; and following such recommendation, the Court of Appeals has appointed a special prosecutor.

There is one case pending in the U.S. District Court in Miami, Florida seeking enforcement of the August 8, 2005 $98.5 million Nicaraguan judgment. Commencing on September 1, 2009, there will be an evidentiary hearing to consider Dole’s request that the Court deny enforcement of this judgment, contending that Nicaragua’s judicial system does not provide due process or an impartial judiciary, which also lacks transparency and is corrupt. Miami District Court Judge Paul C. Huck is already aware of the evidence of fraud detailed in Judge Chaney’s June 17, 2009 written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Claimants have also sought to enforce the Nicaraguan judgments in Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. In Venezuela, the claimants have attempted to enforce five of the Nicaraguan judgments in that country’s Supreme Court: $489.4 million (December 11, 2002); $82.9 million (February 25, 2004); $15.7 million (May 25, 2004); $56.5 million (June 14, 2004); and $64.8 million (June 15, 2004). The Venezuela Supreme Court has ordered the plaintiffs to properly serve the defendants, or have their request for recognition of these Nicaragua judgments dismissed. An action filed to enforce the $27.7 million Nicaraguan judgment (March 17, 2005) in the Colombian Supreme Court was dismissed. In Ecuador, the claimants attempted to enforce the five Nicaraguan judgments issued between February 25, 2004 through June 15, 2004 in the Ecuador Supreme Court. The First, Second and Third Chambers of the Ecuador Supreme Court issued rulings refusing to consider those enforcement actions on the ground that the Supreme Court was not a court of competent jurisdiction for enforcement of a foreign judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently refiled those five enforcement actions in the civil court in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Two of these subsequently filed enforcement actions have been dismissed by the 3rd Civil Court — $15.7 million (May 25, 2004) — and the 12th Civil Court — $56.5 million (June 14, 2004) — in Guayaquil; plaintiffs have sought reconsideration of those dismissals. The remaining three enforcement actions are still pending.

Dole believes that none of the Nicaraguan judgments will be enforceable against any Dole entity in the U.S. or in any other country, because Nicaragua’s Law 364 is unconstitutional and violates international principles of due process. Among other things, Law 364 is an improper “special law” directed at particular parties; it requires defendants to pay large, non-refundable deposits in order to even participate in the litigation; it provides a severely

On October 23, 2006, Dole announced that Standard Fruit de Honduras, S.A. reached an agreement with the Government of Honduras and representatives of Honduran banana workers. This agreement establishes a Worker Program that is intended by the parties to resolve in a fair and equitable manner the claims of male banana workers alleging sterility as a result of exposure to DBCP. The Honduran Worker Program will not have a material effect on Dole’s financial condition or results of operations. The official start of the Honduran Worker Program was announced on January 8, 2007. On August 15, 2007, Shell Oil Company was included in the Worker Program.

As to all the DBCP matters, Dole has denied liability and asserted substantial defenses. While Dole believes there is no reliable scientific basis for alleged injuries from the agricultural field application of DBCP, Dole continues to seek reasonable resolution of pending litigation and claims in the U.S. and Latin America. For example, as in Honduras, Dole is committed to finding a prompt resolution to the DBCP claims in Nicaragua, and is prepared to pursue a structured worker program in Nicaragua with science- based criteria. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Chaney had previously appointed a mediator to explore possible settlement of all DBCP cases currently pending before the court. Although no assurance can be given concerning the outcome of these cases, in the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel and based on past experience defending and settling DBCP claims, the pending lawsuits are not expected to have a material adverse effect on Dole’s financial condition or results of operations.

European Union Antitrust Inquiry:  On October 15, 2008, the European Commission (“EC”) adopted a Decision against Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe OHG and against other unrelated banana companies, finding violations of the European competition (antitrust) laws. The Decision imposes €45.6 million in fines on Dole.

The Decision follows a Statement of Objections, issued by the EC on July 25, 2007, and searches carried out by the EC in June 2005 at certain banana importers and distributors, including two of Dole’s offices. Dole received the Decision on October 21, 2008 and appealed the Decision to the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg on December 24, 2008.

Dole made an initial $10 million (€7.6 million) provisional payment towards the €45.6 million fine on January 22, 2009. As agreed with the European Commission (DG Budget), Dole provided the required bank guaranty for the remaining balance of the fine to the European Commission by the deadline of April 30, 2009. The bank guaranty renews annually during the appeals process (which may take several years) and carries interest of 6.15% (accrued from January 23, 2009). If the European Court of First Instance fully agrees with Dole’s arguments presented in its appeal, Dole will be entitled to the return of all monies paid, plus interest.

On November 28 and 29, 2007, the EC conducted searches of Dole offices in Italy and Spain, as well as of other companies’ offices located in these countries. Dole continues to cooperate with the EC’s requests for information.

Although no assurances can be given, and although there could be a material adverse effect on Dole, Dole believes that it has not violated the European competition laws. No accrual for the Decision has been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements, since Dole cannot determine at this time the amount of probable loss, if any, incurred as a result of the Decision.

Honduran Tax Case:  In 2005, Dole received a tax assessment from Honduras of approximately $137 million (including the claimed tax, penalty, and interest through the date of assessment) relating to the disposition of all of our interest in Cervecería Hondureña, S.A. in 2001. Dole believes the assessment is without merit and filed an appeal with the Honduran tax authorities, which was denied. As a result of the denial in the administrative process, in order to negate the tax assessment, on August 5, 2005, Dole proceeded to the next stage of the appellate process by filing a lawsuit against the Honduran government in the Honduran Administrative Tax Trial Court. The

Dole continuously reviews its assets in order to identify those assets that do not meet Dole’s future strategic direction or internal economic return criteria. As a result of this review, Dole has identified and is in the process of selling specific businesses and long-lived assets. In accordance with FAS 144, Dole has reclassified these assets as held-for-sale.

Total assets held-for-sale by segment were as follows:

At June 20, 2009, assets held-for-sale related primarily to property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation.

Total liabilities held-for-sale by segment were as follows:

Dole received total cash proceeds of approximately $84 million on assets sold during the half year ended June 20, 2009, which had been classified as held-for-sale. The total realized gain recorded on assets classified as held-for-sale was $18.1 million for the half year ended June 20, 2009, which included $1.3 million related to the fresh-cut flowers discontinued operation. Realized gains related to continuing operations for the half year ended June 20, 2009, of $16.8 million, are shown as a separate component of operating income in the condensed consolidated statement of operations.

During the second quarter of 2009, Dole reclassified one Chilean farm and the assets and liabilities of an Italian port operation to held-for-sale.

Dole completed the sale of a portion of its Latin American banana operations during January 2009. Net proceeds from the sale totaled approximately $25.8 million. To date, Dole has collected $18 million in cash ($2 million in 2008 and $16 million in 2009) and has recorded a $7.8 million receivable which will be collected through January 2010. Dole also sold a wood box plant in Chile for $0.6 million. Total realized gains recorded on these sales approximated $6.7 million for the half year ended June 20, 2009.

During the third quarter of 2009, Dole signed letters of intent to sell some operating properties located in Latin America for approximately $68 million. As of June 20, 2009, the assets and liabilities of these operating properties have not been included in assets or liabilities held-for-sale. The sale of these operating properties are expected to close during the third quarter of 2009.

During the first quarter of 2009, Dole completed the sale of 1,100 acres of property located in California. Dole received net cash proceeds of $44.5 million and recorded a gain on the sale of $9.2 million, which is included in gain on asset sales in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the half year ended June 20, 2009.

During the first half of 2009, Dole sold approximately 160 acres of peach orchards located in California for approximately $1.9 million and recorded a gain on the sale of $0.9 million.

During January 2009, the first phase of the Flowers transaction was completed. Dole only retains some of the real estate of the former flowers divisions to be sold in the subsequent phases of the transaction. Net proceeds from the sale totaled approximately $29.3 million. Of this amount, $21 million was collected in cash and the remaining $8.3 million was recorded as a receivable, which will be repaid during January 2011. Dole recorded a gain on the sale of $1.3 million, which is included as a component of gain on disposal from discontinued operations, net of income taxes in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the half year ended June 20, 2009.

Dole is exposed to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, bunker fuel price fluctuations and interest rate changes in the normal course of its business. As part of its risk management strategy, Dole uses derivative instruments to hedge certain foreign currency, bunker fuel and interest rate exposures. Dole’s objective is to offset gains and losses resulting from these exposures with losses and gains on the derivative contracts used to hedge them, thereby reducing volatility of earnings. Dole does not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

All of Dole’s derivative instruments, with the exception of the interest rate swap, are not designated as effective hedges of cash flows as defined by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended (“FAS 133”). The interest rate swap is accounted for as a cash flow hedge under FAS 133 and accordingly, unrealized gains or losses are recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (“AOCI”) in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Dole entered into an interest rate swap in 2006 to hedge future changes in interest rates. This agreement effectively converted $320 million of borrowings under Term Loan C, which was variable-rate debt, to a fixed-rate basis through 2011. The interest rate swap fixed the interest rate at 7.2%. The paying and receiving rates under the interest rate swap were 5.5% and 1.1% as of June 20, 2009, with an outstanding notional amount of $320 million.

Dole executed a cross currency swap during 2006 to synthetically convert $320 million of Term Loan C into Japanese yen denominated debt in order to effectively lower the U.S. dollar fixed interest rate of 7.2% to a Japanese yen interest rate of 3.6%. Payments under the cross currency swap were converted from U.S. dollars to Japanese yen at an exchange rate of ¥111.9.

During the second quarter of 2009, Dole amended its cross currency and interest rate swap agreements. The amendments removed early termination provisions which would have allowed the counterparty to settle the swaps at certain specified dates prior to maturity. In addition, the rate at which payments under the cross currency swap were converted from U.S. dollars to Japanese yen increased to ¥114.9 from ¥111.9. In connection with these amendments, Dole also entered into a collateral arrangement which requires Dole to provide collateral to its counterparties when the fair market value of the cross currency and interest rate swap exceed a combined liability of $35 million. The measurement date for the collateral required at June 20, 2009 was June 16, 2009, and the fair value of the swaps at the measurement date was a liability of approximately $76 million. Dole provided cash collateral of $6.1 million, which was recorded as restricted deposits in the condensed consolidated balance sheet, and the remaining $35 million of collateral was issued through letters of credit.

At June 20, 2009, the exchange rate of the Japanese yen to U.S. dollar was ¥96.5. The value of the cross currency swap will fluctuate based on changes in the U.S. dollar to Japanese yen exchange rate and market interest rates until maturity in 2011, at which time it will settle in cash at the then current exchange rate.

At June 20, 2009, the gross notional value and fair market value of Dole’s derivative instruments were as follows: