UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Form 10-Q

Commission file number 1-4455

 

 

Dole Food Company, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(818) 879-6600

 

See Accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

 

See Accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Supplemental cash flow information

At March 27, 2010 and January 2, 2010, accounts payable included approximately $6.7 million and $6.1 million, respectively, for capital additions. Of the $6.1 million of capital additions included in accounts payable at January 2, 2010, approximately $3.5 million had been paid during the quarter ended March 27, 2010. Approximately $4.3 million had been paid during the quarter ended March 28, 2009 related to $6.7 million of capital additions included in accounts payable at January 3, 2009.

For the quarter ended March 28, 2009, changes in operating assets and liabilities for prepaid expenses and other assets included a $10 million provisional payment made to the European Commission (“EC”) during January 2009 related to the EC’s Antitrust Decision. Refer to Note 11 — Contingencies for further information.

In addition to proceeds from asset sales of $56.4 million for the quarter ended March 28, 2009, $25.9 million of long-term debt was assumed by the buyer of the fresh-cut flowers subsidiaries, therefore providing a total benefit to Dole of $82.3 million from asset sales. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the fresh-cut flowers subsidiaries borrowed $25.9 million and Dole’s cash balance at January 3, 2009 reflected the cash proceeds from this transaction. The debt ceased to be an obligation of Dole upon the closing of the first phase of the Flowers transaction during the first quarter of 2009.

 

See Accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

 

See Accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

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 March 27, 2010 and March 28, 2009 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 year ended January 2, 2010.

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. As a result of the transaction, Dole became wholly-owned by David H. Murdock, Dole’s Chairman. On October 28, 2009, Dole completed a $446 million initial public offering (“IPO”) of 35,715,000 common shares at $12.50 per share. On October 23, 2009, Dole’s common stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “DOLE.” At the completion of the IPO, Dole’s chairman, David H. Murdock, and his affiliates beneficially own approximately 51,710,000 common shares, or 58.6% of Dole’s outstanding common shares.

During May 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued a statement which establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued. In February 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2010-09, Subsequent Events (“Topic 855”) — Amendments to Certain Recognition and Disclosure Requirements (“ASU 2010-09”). ASU 2010-09 amends the previous guidance on subsequent events and no longer requires Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filers to disclose the date through which subsequent events have been evaluated. The subsequent event provisions are effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009 and were effective for Dole beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2010. The adoption of this standard had no impact on Dole’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

During June 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-17, Consolidations (“Topic 810”) — Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities (“ASU 2009-17”). ASU 2009-17 amended the consolidation guidance applicable to variable interest entities (“VIE”) and changed the approach for determining the primary beneficiary of a VIE. Among other things, the new guidance requires a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis to determine the primary beneficiary of a VIE; requires continuous assessments of whether an enterprise is the primary beneficiary of a VIE; enhances disclosures about an enterprise’s involvement with a VIE; and amends certain guidance for determining whether an entity is a VIE. This accounting guidance is effective for annual periods beginning after November 15, 2009 and was effective for Dole beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2010. The adoption of this standard had no impact on Dole’s results of operations or financial position.

Included in other income (expense), net in Dole’s condensed consolidated statements of operations for the quarters ended March 27, 2010 and March 28, 2009 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 transactions”). The first phase of the Flowers transaction was completed during the first quarter of 2009. The operating results of fresh-cut flowers for the quarters ended March 27, 2010 and March 28, 2009 are reported in the following table:

For all periods presented, noncontrolling interests’ shares of income from discontinued operations were not material.

Dole recorded $3.2 million of income tax expense on $24.1 million of pretax income from continuing operations for the quarter ended March 27, 2010. Income tax expense included an interest benefit of $0.7 million related to Dole’s unrecognized tax benefits. Income tax expense of $8 million was recorded for the quarter ended March 28, 2009 which included interest expense of $0.6 million (net of associated income tax benefits of approximately $0.2 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. Income tax expense for the quarter ended March 27, 2010 included $2.4 million recorded to establish a valuation allowance against deferred income tax assets in Ecuador which, as the result of a recently enacted tax law, have been determined to not be recoverable. This was offset by a reduction in Dole’s liability for unrecognized tax benefits related to certain foreign jurisdictions.

Under ASC Topic 270, “Interim Reporting” (“ASC 270”) and ASC Topic 740, “Income Taxes” (“ASC 740”), Dole is required to adjust its effective tax rate for each quarter to be consistent with the estimated annual effective tax rate. Jurisdictions with a projected loss where no tax benefit can be recognized are excluded from the calculation of the estimated annual effective tax rate. Applying the provisions of ASC 270 and ASC 740 could result in a higher or lower effective tax rate during a particular quarter, based upon the mix and timing of actual earnings versus annual projections.

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.

Dole recognizes accrued interest and penalties related to its unrecognized tax benefits as a component of income taxes in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations. Accrued interest and penalties before tax benefits were $27.6 million and $28.3 million at March 27, 2010 and January 2, 2010, respectively, and are included as a component of other long-term liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Dole Food Company, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and various state 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 has 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:  On August 27, 2009, the IRS completed its examination of Dole’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the years 2002-2005 and issued a Revenue Agent’s report (“RAR”) that includes various proposed adjustments, including with respect to the going-private merger transactions. The IRS is proposing that certain funding used in the going-private merger is currently taxable and that certain related investment banking fees are not deductible. The net tax deficiency associated with the RAR is $122 million, plus interest. On October 27, 2009, Dole filed a protest letter vigorously challenging the proposed adjustments contained in the RAR and is pursuing resolution of these issues with the Appeals Division of the IRS. Dole believes, based in part upon the advice of its tax advisors, that its tax treatment of such transactions was appropriate. Although the timing and ultimate resolution of any issues arising from the IRS examination are highly uncertain, at this time Dole does not anticipate that the total unrecognized tax benefits will significantly change within the next twelve months nor does Dole believe that any material tax payments will be made related to these matters within the next twelve months.

On November 6, 2009, “The Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009” was signed into law allowing companies to carry back net operating losses for up to five years for losses incurred in taxable years beginning or ending in either 2008 or 2009. Dole estimates that this new law effectively reduces the amount of the IRS claim from $122 million to $91 million. As noted, however, Dole is pursuing its objection to the proposed adjustments in the RAR.

There was no impact to Dole from the changes made to the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D program as a result of the March 2010 enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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:

Amortization expense of intangible assets totaled $0.9 million in each of the quarters ended March 27, 2010 and March 28, 2009, respectively.

As of March 27, 2010 the estimated remaining amortization expense associated with Dole’s intangible assets for the remainder of 2010 and in each of the next four fiscal years is as follows (in thousands):

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

Notes Payable

Dole borrows funds primarily on a short-term basis to finance current operations. The terms of these borrowings range from one month to three months. Dole’s notes payables at March 27, 2010 consist primarily of foreign borrowings in Asia and Latin America.

2010 Debt Refinancing

On March 2, 2010, Dole amended its senior secured credit facilities. The amendments, among other things: (i) reduced the applicable Eurodollar interest rate for the term loan facilities to LIBOR plus 3.25%, with a LIBOR floor of 1.75%, or the base rate plus 2.25%; (ii) for the revolving credit facility, kept interest rates on borrowed funds unchanged at a range of LIBOR plus 3.00% to 3.50% or the base rate plus 2.00% to 2.50%, with the rate at any time determined by the average historical borrowing availability; (iii) changed the financial covenant metrics to a maximum total leverage ratio and a minimum interest coverage ratio; (iv) added significant operating and financial

flexibility for Dole; and (v) provided for other technical and clarifying changes. The amended senior secured credit facilities provided $850 million of term loan facilities due 2017 and a $350 million revolving credit facility due 2014.

In March 2010, subsequent to the amendments, Dole repaid $13.9 million of the term loan facilities due 2017.

The 8.875% Senior Notes due 2011 (“2011 Notes”) are scheduled to mature during March 2011. As a result, during the quarter ended March 27, 2010, the remaining $70 million of notes outstanding were reclassified to current liabilities. On March 2, 2010, Dole called for redemption all of the remaining 2011 Notes. On April 1, 2010, Dole redeemed the remaining $70 million of the 2011 Notes outstanding with the proceeds from the senior secured credit facilities amendments.

Term Loans and Revolving Credit Facility

As of March 27, 2010, the term loan facilities consisted of $240 million of Term Loan B and $596.1 million of Term Loan C. The term loan facilities bear interest, at Dole’s option, at a rate per annum equal to either (i) LIBOR plus a base rate of 3.25%, with a LIBOR floor of 1.75%; or (ii) the base rate plus 2.25%. Interest on the term loan facilities is payable quarterly in arrears. The weighted average variable interest rate at March 27, 2010 for Term Loan B and Term Loan C was 5.02%. The term loan facilities require quarterly principal payments, plus a balloon payment due in 2017. Dole has an interest rate swap to hedge future changes in interest rates and a cross currency swap to lower the U.S. dollar fixed interest rate to a Japanese yen fixed interest rate on Term Loan C through June 2011. Refer to Note 13 — Derivative Financial Instruments for additional information related to these instruments.

As of March 27, 2010, the asset based lending senior secured revolving credit facility (“ABL revolver”) borrowing base was $271.3 million. There were no borrowings under the ABL revolver at March 27, 2010. Amounts outstanding under the ABL revolver bears interest, at Dole’s option, at a rate per annum equal to either (i) LIBOR plus 3.00% to 3.50%, or (ii) a base rate plus 2.00% to 2.50%, in each case, based upon Dole’s historical borrowing availability under this facility. The ABL revolver matures in March 2014. After taking into account approximately $92 million of outstanding letters of credit issued under the ABL revolver, Dole had approximately $179.3 million available for borrowings as of March 27, 2010. In addition, Dole had approximately $89.1 million of letters of credit and bank guarantees outstanding under its $100 million pre-funded letter of credit facility as of March 27, 2010.

Capital Lease Obligations

At March 27, 2010 and January 2, 2010, included in capital lease obligations were $56.4 million and $62.2 million, respectively, of vessel financing related to two vessel leases denominated in British pound sterling. The decrease in the capital lease obligation was primarily due to the weakening of the British pound sterling against the U.S. dollar during 2010, which resulted in Dole recognizing $5.2 million of unrealized gains. These unrealized gains were recorded as other income (expense), net in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Covenants

Provisions under the senior secured credit facilities and 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 also contains a “springing covenant,” which would not be effective unless the availability under the ABL revolver were to fall below the greater of $37.5 million and 12.5% of the Total Commitment (as defined) for any three consecutive business days. To date, the springing covenant had never been effective and Dole does not currently anticipate that the springing covenant will become effective.

In addition, as a result of the March 2, 2010 amendments to Dole’s senior secured credit facilities, Dole is subject to a maximum total leverage and a minimum interest coverage ratio. At March 27, 2010, Dole’s total leverage ratio was 3.90x and interest coverage ratio was 2.00x as compared with the required maximum total leverage ratio of 5.00x and the minimum interest coverage ratio of 1.50x.

A breach of a covenant or other provision in any debt instrument governing Dole’s current or future indebtedness could result in a default under that instrument and, due to customary cross-default and cross-acceleration provisions, could result in a default under Dole’s other debt instruments. 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 would be sufficiently liquid to repay in full its outstanding indebtedness on an accelerated basis.

Debt Discounts and Debt Issuance Costs

In connection with the March 2, 2010 amendments of the senior secured credit facilities, Dole incurred debt issuance costs of $17 million. Debt issuance costs are capitalized and amortized into interest expense over the term of the underlying debt. During the quarters ended March 27, 2010 and March 28, 2009, Dole amortized deferred debt issuance costs of $1.2 million and $0.9 million, respectively.

Dole wrote off $4.6 million of deferred debt issuance costs during the quarter ended March 27, 2010 resulting from the amendments of the senior secured credit facilities as well as repayment of the term loan facilities subsequent to the amendments. In accordance with ASC Topic 470, “Debt,” the term loans and a portion of the ABL revolver, as a result of the amendments, were accounted for as extinguishment of debt. The write-off related to these amendments was recorded in other income (expense), net in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Debt discounts on term loan facilities in connection with the 2010 amendments of the senior secured credit facilities totaled $8.5 million. Debt discounts are amortized into interest expense over the term of the underlying debt. During the quarter ended March 27, 2010, Dole amortized debt discounts of $0.9 million.

Fair Value of Debt

Dole estimates the fair value of its secured and unsecured notes and debentures based on current quoted market prices. The term loans are traded between institutional investors on the secondary loan market, and the fair values of the term loans are based on the last available trading price. The carrying values and estimated fair values of Dole’s debt are summarized below:

Carrying values are net of debt discounts.

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 U.S. GAAP and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net income or cash flow measures prepared in accordance with U.S. 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 manner.

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

 

Dole’s earnings from equity method investments, 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 March 27, 2010, guarantees of $6.1 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 March 27, 2010, total letters of credit, bank

guarantees and bonds outstanding under these arrangements were $217.4 million, of which $89.1 million was issued under Dole’s pre-funded letter of credit facility.

Dole also provides various guarantees, mostly to foreign banks, in the course of its normal business operations to support the borrowings, leases and other obligations of its subsidiaries. Dole guaranteed $200.8 million of its subsidiaries’ obligations to their suppliers and other third parties as of March 27, 2010.

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 position 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 entities of The Dow Chemical Company and Royal Dutch Shell plc and registered by the U.S. government for use on food crops. Dole and other growers applied DBCP on banana farms in Latin America and the Philippines and on pineapple farms in Hawaii. Specific periods of use varied among the different locations. Dole halted all purchases of DBCP, including for use in foreign countries, when the U.S. EPA cancelled the registration of DBCP for use in the United States in 1979. That cancellation was based in part on a 1977 study by a manufacturer which indicated an apparent link between male sterility and exposure to DBCP among factory workers producing the product, as well as early product testing done by the manufacturers showing testicular effects on animals exposed to DBCP. To date, there is no reliable evidence demonstrating that field application of DBCP led to sterility among farm workers, although that claim is made in the pending lawsuits. Nor is there any reliable scientific evidence that DBCP causes any other injuries in humans, although plaintiffs in the various actions assert claims based on cancer, birth defects and other general illnesses.

Currently there are 226 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 72 labor cases pending in Costa Rica under that country’s national insurance program.

Thirteen of the 226 lawsuits are currently pending in various jurisdictions in the United States. 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 have now been 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 other plaintiffs. On July 7, 2009, the California Second District Court of 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 were 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 an evidentiary 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. Since the Court of Appeal’s order, the four plaintiffs who prevailed against Dole, and the one as to whom a new trial was granted, responded to the Court’s order to show cause. They moved to dismiss Dole’s petition to set aside the judgment based on fraud, which motion was denied. The Court has set a hearing for May 10, 2010 on Dole’s petition to set aside the judgment based on fraud.

The remaining lawsuits are pending in Latin America and the Philippines. Claimed damages in DBCP cases worldwide total approximately $44.9 billion, with lawsuits in Nicaragua representing approximately 87% 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.

In Nicaragua, 197 cases are currently filed (of which 29 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, 2004; $56.5 million (one case with 72 claimants) on June 14, 2004; $64.8 million (one case with 86 claimants) on June 15, 2004; $27.7 million (one case with 36 claimants) on March 17, 2005; $98.5 million (one case with 150 claimants) on August 8, 2005; $46.4 million (one case with 62 claimants) on August 20, 2005; $809 million (six cases consolidated with 1,248 claimants) on December 1, 2006; $38.4 million (one case with 192 claimants) on November 14, 2007; and $357.7 million (eight cases with 417 claimants) on January 12, 2009, which Dole learned of unofficially. Except for the latest one, Dole has appealed all judgments, with Dole’s appeal of the August 8, 2005 $98.5 million judgment and of the December 1, 2006 $809 million judgment currently pending before the Nicaragua Court of Appeal. Dole will appeal the $357.7 million judgment once it has been served.

Of the 29 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 29 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 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 appointed a special prosecutor. The Court held oral argument on the recommendation of the special prosecutor and a follow up hearing on such recommendation was held on October 15, 2009.

On October 20, 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an order denying recognition and enforcement of the $98.5 million Nicaragua judgment against Dole and another U.S. company. That order cited separate and independent grounds for non-recognition: the Nicaragua trial court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant companies; the judgment did not arise out of proceedings that comported with the international concept of due process; the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide an impartial tribunal or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law; and the cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of Florida. Final judgment in favor of Dole (and the other defendant companies) was entered November 10, 2009, and the Court ordered the

case closed. On March 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an appeal which is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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 dismissed three of these enforcement actions, the one for $15.7 million, one for $56.5 million and one for $82.9 million, because plaintiffs failed to properly serve the defendants. 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 truncated procedural process; it establishes an irrebuttable presumption of causation that is contrary to the evidence and scientific data; and it sets unreasonable minimum damages that must be awarded in every case.

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 position 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. The Los Angeles Superior Court 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 the DBCP 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 position or results of operations.

European Union Antitrust Inquiries — Northern and Southern Europe:

Northern Europe

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 EC 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.

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 condensed consolidated financial statements, since Dole cannot determine at this time the amount of probable loss, if any, incurred as a result of the Decision.

Southern Europe

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. Throughout the EC’s investigation, Dole cooperated with the EC in its inquiries, while maintaining that Dole had not violated European competition law. In December 2009, the EC issued a Statement of Objections to a number of companies active in the import and marketing of bananas in Southern Europe. No Dole entities were addressees of this Statement of Objections.

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 Dole’s interest in Cervecería Hondurea, 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 Honduran government sought dismissal of the lawsuit and attachment of assets, which Dole challenged. The Honduran Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Honduran intermediate appellate court that a statutory prerequisite to challenging the tax assessment on the merits is the payment of the tax assessment or the filing of a payment plan with the Honduran courts; Dole has challenged the constitutionality of the statute requiring such payment or payment plan. Although no assurance can be given concerning the outcome of this case, in the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, the pending lawsuits and tax-related matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on Dole’s financial position or results of operations.

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 ASC Topic 205, “Presentation of Financial Statements,” Dole has reclassified these assets as held-for-sale.

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

Assets held-for-sale included in Dole’s balance sheet at March 27, 2010 consist of property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation. There were no liabilities held-for-sale.

Dole received total cash proceeds of approximately $9.5 million during the quarter ended March 27, 2010, which are related to Dole’s asset sale program. The total realized gain recorded from the asset sale program was $2 million for the quarter ended March 27, 2010, which is shown as a separate component of operating income in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Dole received total proceeds of $81.8 million on assets sold during the quarter ended March 28, 2009, which had been classified as held-for-sale. The total realized gain recorded on assets classified as held-for-sale, was $17.9 million for the quarter ended March 28, 2009, which included $1.3 million related to the first phase of the Flowers transaction. Realized gains related to continuing operations, of $16.6 million, are shown as a separate component of operating income in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the quarter ended March 28, 2009.

Fresh Fruit

During the first quarter of 2010, Dole added $4.9 million to the assets held-for-sale balance, which represented approximately 1,000 acres of land in Hawaii. For the quarter ended March 27, 2010, Dole sold a farm located in Chile and land in Hawaii for $1.7 million and recorded a gain of $0.9 million. In addition, Dole collected $1.1 million during the first quarter of 2010 related to the sale of a Colombian container port yard in the fourth quarter of 2009 and recorded a gain of $1.1 million. Dole also collected $6.7 million in notes receivable during the first quarter of 2010 related to the sale of a portion of its Latin American banana operations and certain box plants completed during fiscal 2009.

Fresh Vegetables

During the first quarter of 2010, Dole decided to cease to actively market a former headquarters facility located in California due to weakness in the California real estate market. As a result, the assets related to the California campus facility were reclassified to property, plant, and equipment on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 27, 2010.

Fresh-Cut Flowers — Discontinued Operation

As of March 27, 2010, the assets held-for-sale balance in the fresh-cut flowers — discontinued operation consists of a portion of the real estate of the former flowers division to be sold in subsequent phases of the transaction. During January 2010, Dole was notified by the buyer of the flowers business that it was exercising its option to purchase a portion of the assets with closing expected during the second quarter of 2010. The buyer also has notified Dole that it intends to purchase another group of assets in the second or third quarter of 2010. An option

for the final group of assets expires in July 2010. Upon completion of the sale in 2010 and the sale of the remaining assets, Dole will have received sales proceeds of approximately $28 million with a net book value of $10 million.

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.

Cash Flow Hedges

During the first quarter of 2010, Dole designated a majority of its foreign currency derivative instruments as cash flow hedges in accordance with guidance provided by ASC Topic 815, “Derivatives and Hedging” (“ASC 815”). Specifically, Dole designated a majority of its foreign currency exchange forward contracts and participating forward contracts as cash flow hedges of its forecasted revenue and operating expense transactions. As a result, changes in fair value of the foreign currency derivative instruments since hedge designation, to the extent effective, are recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (“AOCI”) in the condensed consolidated balance sheet and are reclassified into earnings in the same period the underlying transactions affect earnings. Any portion of a cash flow hedge deemed ineffective is recognized into current period earnings.

As discussed in Note 8, certain terms of Dole’s senior secured credit facilities were amended in connection with the March 2010 refinancing transactions. Dole has evaluated the impact of these amendments on its hedge designation for its interest rate swap and has determined not to re-designate the interest rate swap as a cash flow hedge of its interest rate risk associated with Term Loan C. As a result, changes in the fair value of the interest rate swap after de-designation on March 2, 2010 is recorded into interest expense. The unrealized loss of $20.4 million at March 2, 2010 will be recognized into interest expense as the underlying Term Loan C interest payments are made.

Interest Rate Swap and Cross Currency Swap

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 0.3% as of March 27, 2010, with an outstanding notional amount of $320 million.

During 2006 (subsequently amended in 2009), Dole executed a cross currency swap 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 JPY 114.9.

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 swaps exceeds a combined liability of $35 million. The measurement date for the collateral required at March 27, 2010 was March 25, 2010, and the fair value of the swaps at the measurement date was a liability of approximately $91 million. Dole provided cash collateral of $21.3 million, which was recorded as restricted deposits in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet, and the remaining $35 million of collateral was issued through letters of credit.

At March 27, 2010, the exchange rate of the Japanese yen to U.S. dollar was JPY 92.7. 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 March 27, 2010, the gross notional value and fair value of Dole’s derivative instruments were as follows:

Settlement of the foreign currency and bunker fuel hedges will occur during 2010.

The effects of the interest rate swap and foreign currency hedges designated as cash flow hedging instruments on accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the quarters ended March 27, 2010 and March 28, 2009 were as follows:

Unrealized gains and losses on the interest rate swap were recorded through AOCI through the de-designation date. To the extent effective, unrecognized gains and losses on the foreign currency hedges are recorded through AOCI from the designation date. Unrecognized losses of $16.1 million related to the interest rate swap are expected to be realized into earnings in the next twelve months, with the remaining $3.2 million expected to be realized into earnings through June 2011. Unrecognized gains of $7.9 million related to the foreign currency hedges are expected to be realized into earnings in the next twelve months.

Net unrealized gains (losses) and realized gains (losses) on derivatives not designated as hedging instruments for the quarters ended March 27, 2010 and March 28, 2009:

Dole’s financial instruments primarily consist of short-term trade and grower receivables, trade payables, notes receivable and notes payable, as well as long-term grower receivables, capital lease obligations, term loans, a revolving loan, and notes and debentures. For short-term instruments, the carrying amount approximates fair value because of the short maturity of these instruments. For the long-term financial instruments, excluding Dole’s secured and unsecured notes and debentures, and term loans, the carrying amount approximates fair value since they bear interest at variable rates or fixed rates which approximate market.

Dole performs fair value measurements in accordance with guidance provided by ASC Topic 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures” (“ASC 820”). ASC 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes observable and unobservable inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. These levels, in order of highest to lowest priority are described below:

The following table provides a summary of the assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis under the ASC 820 hierarchy: