Back to GetFilings.com

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

FORM 10-K

[X]    Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         For the fiscal year ended September 28, 2002

[ ]     Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         For the transition period from ________________ to ________________

         Commission File No. 0-3400

TYSON FOODS, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [ ]

On October 31, 2002, the aggregate market value of the Class A Common and Class B Common voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $2,663,795,365 and $418,313, respectively.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes [X] No [ ]

On March 29, 2002, the aggregate market value of the Class A Common and Class B Common voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $3,011,755,881 and $574,554, respectively.

On October 31, 2002, there were outstanding 251,178,675 shares of the registrant's Class A Common Stock, $0.10 par value, and 101,636,348 shares of its Class B Common Stock, $0.10 par value.

Page 1 of 277 Pages
The Exhibit Index appears on pages 65 through 71

        The following indicated portions of the registrant's definitive Proxy Statement for the registrant's Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held February 7, 2003 (the "Proxy Statement") are incorporated by reference into the indicated portions of this Annual Report on Form 10-K: 

        The information set forth under the captions "Election of Directors" and "Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance" in the Proxy Statement.

        The information set forth under the caption "Executive Compensation and Other Information" in the Proxy Statement.

        The information set forth under the captions "Principal Shareholders" and "Security Ownership of Management" in the Proxy Statement.

        The information set forth under the caption "Certain Transactions" in the Proxy Statement.

2

3

GENERAL
Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the Company or Tyson) produce, distribute and market beef, chicken, pork, prepared foods and related allied products. The Company commenced business in 1935, was incorporated in Arkansas in 1947, and was reincorporated in Delaware in 1986. One of the Company's greatest strengths is its position as the world's number one producer, processor and marketer of chicken. As a result of the acquisition of IBP, inc. (IBP) in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2001, the Company is now the world's largest processor and marketer of beef, chicken and pork products.

        Tyson is a totally integrated poultry company. Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Cobb-Vantress, Tyson is the number one breeding stock supplier in the world. Tyson invests in breeding stock research and development. This allows the Company to breed into its flocks the natural characteristics found to be most desirable. The Company's integrated operations consist of breeding and rearing chickens, as well as the processing, further-processing and marketing of these food products and related allied products, including animal and pet food ingredients.

        The Company is also involved in the slaughter of live fed cattle and hogs and fabrication of dressed beef and pork carcasses into primal and sub-primal meat cuts, case-ready products and fully-cooked beef and pork products. In addition, the Company derives value from allied products such as hides and variety meats for sales to further processors. The Company also produces and markets a wide range of value-added, frozen and refrigerated food products.

        The Company's products are marketed and sold to national and regional grocery chains, regional grocery wholesalers, meat distributors, clubs and warehouse stores, military commissaries, industrial food processing companies, national and regional chain restaurants or their distributors, international export companies and domestic distributors who service restaurants, foodservice operations such as plant and school cafeterias, convenience stores, hospitals and other vendors. Sales are made by the Company's sales staffs located in Springdale, Arkansas, and Dakota Dunes, South Dakota, as well as in various regions throughout the United States and in several foreign countries. Additionally, sales to the military and a portion of sales to international markets are made through independent brokers and trading companies.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF BUSINESS SEGMENTS
The Company operates in five business segments: Beef, Chicken, Pork, Prepared Foods and Other. The contribution of each business segment to net sales and operating income, and the identifiable assets attributable to each business segment are set forth in Note 17, "Segment Reporting" of the Consolidated Financial Statements included herein at pages 54 through 55.

Beef  The Company's beef operations are primarily involved in the slaughter of live fed cattle and fabrication of dressed beef carcasses into primal and sub-primal meat cuts and case-ready products. Throughout production, edible beef and allied products, such as hides and variety meat items, are segregated and prepared for shipment or further refinement. Inedible beef products derived from processing operations are used in the manufacture of pet foods, technical products, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.

        Eight of the Company's 14 fed beef plants include hide treatment facilities. The uncured hides from the Company's other fed beef plants are transported to these facilities, which include brine curing operations and, in four locations, chrome hide tanneries. The chrome tanning process produces a semi-finished product that is shipped to leather good manufacturers worldwide. Brine-cured hides are sold to other tanneries. Tyson is the largest chrome tanner of cattle hides in the United States.

Chicken  Originally, the Company was a producer and distributor of fresh chicken. The Company developed a strategy to reduce the impact of the commodity market of the fresh chicken business through value-enhancement. As the industry leader in value-enhanced chicken products, the Company utilizes national and regional advertising, special promotions and brand identification, and meets the varying demands of its customers through capital expenditures and strategic acquisitions. With further-processed chicken products, grain costs as a percentage of total product costs are reduced because of the value added to the products by cutting, deboning, cooking, packaging and/or freezing the chicken.

       4

        The Company's chicken business provides a full range of products from raw to fully-cooked, marinated, breaded, glazed or portioned. In addition to producing products for human consumption, the chicken segment also converts inedible chicken allied products into high-grade pet food and animal feed ingredients.

Pork  The Company's pork operations involve the slaughter of live hogs and the fabrication of pork and allied products. The Company's pork facilities produce fresh boxed pork and case-ready products for shipment to customers, as well as pork bellies, hams and boneless picnic meat for shipment to customers who further process the pork into bacon, cooked hams, luncheon meats and sausage items. Throughout production, edible pork and allied products, such as variety meat items, are segregated and prepared for shipment or further refinement. Inedible pork products derived from processing operations are used by further processing to manufacture pet foods, technical products, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. One pork production facility also has a skinning operation.

        Additionally, the Company has farrow to finish swine operations, which include genetic and nutritional research, breeding, farrowing and feeder pig finishing and the marketing of live swine to regional and national packers that are conducted in Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. In August of 2002, the Company announced its decision to restructure the live swine operation. The restructuring will result in the closure of company-owned and leased feeder pig finishing farms in Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. The Company will retain a limited number of breeding and nursery operations in Oklahoma and northwest Arkansas as well as some feeder pig finishing operations in north central Missouri. The restructuring is expected to be completed in the Company's second quarter of fiscal 2003.

Prepared Foods  The Company's prepared foods operations process fresh beef, fresh pork, and other raw materials into pizza toppings, branded and processed meats, appetizers, hors d'oeuvres, desserts, ethnic foods, soups, sauces, side dishes and pizza crusts and produce flour and corn tortilla products and specialty pasta and meat dishes for restaurants, airlines and other major customers.

Other  The Company's other segment primarily includes the logistics group, which includes fresh and frozen distribution systems, the Company's transportation systems and other corporate groups not identified with specific protein groups.

Beef  The primary raw material used by the Company in its beef operations is live cattle. The Company does not have facilities of its own to raise cattle in the United States. However, the Company has entered into various risk-sharing and procurement arrangements with producers that help secure a supply of livestock for daily start-up operations at its facilities. The Company's Canadian subsidiary, Lakeside Farm Industries LTD (Lakeside), primarily has cattle feeding facilities and a beef carcass production and boxed beef processing facility. In 2002, Lakeside's feedlots provided approximately 19% of that facility's fed cattle needs. The Company's primary supply of live cattle is purchased on a daily basis by buyers who are trained to select high quality animals.

Chicken  The primary raw materials used by the Company in its chicken operations consist of live chickens that are raised primarily by independent contract growers. The Company's vertically-integrated chicken process begins with the grandparent breeder flocks. Breeder farms specialize in producing the generations of male and female strains, with the broiler being the final progeny. The breeder flocks are raised to maturity in grandparent growing and laying farms where fertile eggs are produced. The fertile eggs are incubated at the grandparent hatchery and produce male and female pullets (i.e., the parents). The pullets are sent to breeder houses, and the resulting eggs are sent to Company hatcheries. Once the chicks have hatched, they are sent to broiler farms. There, contract growers care for and raise the chicks according to Company standards and under the supervision of Company technical service personnel until the broilers have reached the desired processing weight. The adult chickens are caught and hauled to processing plants. The finished products are sent to distribution centers and then transported to customers. Vertically-integrated poultry companies operate their own feed mills to produce scientifically-formulated feeds. Corn and soybean meal are major production costs in the poultry industry, representing roughly 39% of the cost of growing a chicken. In addition to feed ingredients to grow the chickens, the Company uses cooking ingredients, packaging materials and cryogenic agents. The Company believes that its sources of supply for these materials are adequate for its present needs and the Company does not anticipate any difficulty in acquiring these materials in the future. While the Company produces substantially all of its inventory of breeder chickens and live broilers, it may also purchase live, ice-packed or deboned chicken to meet production requirements.

5

Pork  The primary raw material used by the Company in its pork operations is live swine. The Company raises live swine to sell to outside processors and supplies a minimal amount of live swine for its own processing needs. The majority of the Company's live swine supply is obtained through various procurement arrangements with producers that help secure a supply for daily start-up operations at its facilities. The Company also employs buyers who purchase hogs on a daily basis, generally a few days before the animals are required for processing.

Prepared Foods  The primary raw materials used by the Company in its prepared foods operations are typically commodity based raw materials, including fresh and frozen beef, chicken and pork, corn, flour and frozen vegetables. Some of these raw materials are provided by the beef, chicken and pork segments and can also be purchased from numerous suppliers and manufacturers.

SEASONAL DEMAND
The demand for the Company's chicken and beef products generally increases during the spring and summer months and generally decreases during the winter months. The Company's pork and prepared foods products generally experience increased demand during the winter months due to the holiday season and decreased demand during the spring and summer months.

CUSTOMERS
No single customer of the Company accounts for more than ten percent of the Company's consolidated revenues. Additionally, no segment is dependent on a single customer or group of customers, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on that segment. Although any extended discontinuance of sales to any major customer could, if not replaced, have an impact on the Company's operations, the Company does not anticipate any such occurrences due to the demand for its products and its ability to obtain new customers, and its overall market share.

BACKLOG OF ORDERS
There is no significant backlog of unfilled orders for the Company's products.

COMPETITION
The Company's food products compete with those of other national and regional food producers and processors and certain prepared food manufacturers, namely, ConAgra Inc., Hormel Foods Corp., Swift and Company, Cargill Inc., Smithfield Foods Inc., Pilgrims Pride Corp. and Sanderson Farms Inc. Additionally, the Company's food products compete in international markets around the world. The Company's principal marketing and competitive strategy is to identify target markets for value-enhanced products, to concentrate production, sales and marketing efforts in order to appeal to and enhance the demand from those markets and, utilizing its national distribution system and customer support services, to achieve a dominant market position for its products. Past efforts have indicated that customer demand generally can be increased and sustained through application of the Company's marketing strategy, as supported by its distribution system. The principal competitive elements are brand identificati on, price, product quality, and customer service.

INTERNATIONAL
The Company exported to more than 80 foreign countries in fiscal 2002. Major export markets include Canada, China, European Union, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Russia, Taiwan and South Korea.

        The Company continues to believe that Asia offers potential in terms of developing processing facilities. The Company's joint venture in China to produce further processed poultry products began operations in January 2002. Meanwhile, the Company's subsidiary in Mexico continues to grow rapidly under improving economic conditions. During the fiscal year the Company completed construction of the first fully-cooked line in Mexico as the market for further processed items continues to expand. The Company has entered into a technical service agreement with Grupo Melo in Panama to assist Grupo Melo with the production of further processed chicken products and to allow it to license the Tyson brand. The Company also has two other joint ventures in China, including one that processes pork casings and one that is a pork processing plant. The Company also has an equity interest in a Russian meat processing plant and a cooked meats facili ty in Ireland.

6

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Company conducts continuous research and development activities to improve the strains of primary chicken breeding stock and finished product development. Additionally, the Company strives to develop ways to automate manual processes in its processing plants and growout operations. The annual cost of such research and development programs is less than one percent of total consolidated annual sales.

REGULATION AND FOOD SAFETY
The Company's facilities for processing beef, chicken, pork and prepared foods and for housing live chicken and swine are subject to a variety of federal, state and local laws relating to the protection of the environment, including provisions relating to the discharge of materials into the environment, and to the health and safety of its employees., The Company's beef, chicken and pork processing facilities are participants in the government's Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) program. The cost of compliance with such laws and regulations has not had a material adverse effect upon the Company's capital expenditures, earnings or competitive position and it is not anticipated to have a material adverse effect in the future. In 2002, the Company incurred expenses of approximately $83 million to maintain compliance with such regulations. These expenditures relate principally to the normal operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities ("Waste Treatment Facilitie s"), where the Company biologically treats these wastes, and the associated land application of wastes generated at these treatment facilities. Except as disclosed in Item 3, the Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with such applicable laws and regulations and the Company is not aware of any violations of, or pending changes in, such laws and regulations that are likely to result in material penalties or material increases in compliance costs. The Company incurred $23 million in capital expenditures, primarily related to its Wastewater Treatment Facilities, in fiscal 2002 and anticipates capital expenditures of approximately $24 million in fiscal 2003 for environmental projects primarily related to the Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

The Company works to ensure its products meet high standards of food quality and safety. The Company's beef, chicken, pork and prepared foods products are subject to inspection prior to distribution, primarily by the United States Department of Agriculture. Notwithstanding these efforts, food producers are at risk that their products may contain pathogens unless the product has been properly produced, handled and cooked.

The Company incurs risk if its products are determined to be contaminated or cause illness or injury. This risk includes (1) cost of, and negative consumer reaction associated with, adverse publicity and product recalls; (2) exposure to related civil litigation; and (3) regulatory administrative penalties, which can include injunctive relief and other civil remedies, including plant closings.

EMPLOYEES AND LABOR RELATIONS
As of October 31, 2002, the Company employed approximately 120,000 persons. The Company believes that its relations with its workforce are good.

        Set forth below is a listing of the Company facilities which have employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement together with the name of the union party to the collective bargaining agreement, the number of employees at the facility subject thereto and the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement currently in effect.

8

UFCW - United Food and Commercial Workers Union
RWDSU - Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union
IUOE - International Union of Electrical Workers
CTM - Confederacion de Trabajadores de Mexico
FNCSI - Sindicato Industrial de Trabajadores de Nuevo Leon
CROM - Confederacion Reginal Obrera de Mexico
CROC - Confederacion Reginal de Obreros y Campesinos
(1) Contracts are currently under negotiations

The Company has not experienced any strike or work stoppage that has had a material impact on operations.

MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION
The Company's principal marketing objective is to be the primary provider of beef, chicken, pork and prepared foods products for our customers. The Company identifies distinct markets and business opportunities through extensive consumer and market research. In fiscal 2002, the Company's national branding strategy focused on the Tyson (chicken) and Thomas E. Wilson (red meat) brands, as well as a number of regional brands. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2002 the Company made the decision to capitalize on the strong recognition of the Tyson brand by expanding the Tyson brand to beef and pork. Thus, the Tyson brand will replace the Thomas E. Wilson brand in a process that is expected to be completed over the next six months. All communications stress the quality and value proposition of the products while supporting and building brand awareness. Communications efforts utilize a fully integrated and coordinated mix of activities designed to connect with customers and consumers on both a rational and emotional level. The Company utilizes its national distribution system and customer support services to achieve a dominant market position for its products.

        The Company has the ability to produce and ship fresh, frozen and refrigerated products. The Company's nationwide distribution system utilizes a network of food distributors which is supported by cold storage warehouses owned or leased by the Company, by public cold storage facilities and by the Company's transportation system. The Company ships products from Company-owned consolidated frozen food distribution centers, from a network of public cold storages, from other owned and leased facilities and directly from plants. The Company's distribution centers facilitate accumulating frozen products so that it can fill and consolidate less-than-truckload orders into full truckloads, thereby decreasing shipping costs while increasing customer service. In addition, customers are provided with a selection of products that do not require large volume orders. The Company's distribution system enables it to supply large or small quantities o f products to meet customer requirements anywhere in the continental United States.

PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
The Company has registered a number of trademarks relating to its products which either have been approved or are in the process of application. Because the Company does a significant amount of brand name and product line advertising to promote its products, it considers the protection of such trademarks to be important to its marketing efforts. The Company has also developed non-public proprietary information regarding its production processes and other product-related matters. The Company utilizes internal procedures and safeguards to protect the confidentiality of such information, and where appropriate, seeks patent protection for the technology it utilizes.

INDUSTRY PRACTICES
The Company's agreements with its customers are generally short-term, verbal agreements due primarily to the nature of its products, industry practice and the fluctuation in demand and price for such products. In certain instances where the Company is selling further processed products to large customers, the Company may enter into written agreements whereby the Company will act as the exclusive or preferred supplier to the customer for periods ranging from 2 to 5 years and on pricing terms which may be either be fixed or variable.

9

This report and other written reports and oral statements made from time to time by the Company and its representatives contain forward-looking statements, including forward-looking statements made in this report, with respect to their current views and estimates of future economic circumstances, industry conditions, company performance and financial results. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of factors and uncertainties that could cause the Company's actual results and experiences to differ materially from the anticipated results and expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements. The Company wishes to caution readers not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. Tyson undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

        Among the factors that may affect the operating results of the Company are the following: (i) fluctuations in the cost and availability of raw materials, such as live cattle, live swine or feed grain costs; (ii) changes in the availability and relative costs of labor and contract growers; (iii) operating efficiencies of facilities; (iv) market conditions for finished products, including the supply and pricing of alternative proteins; (v) effectiveness of advertising and marketing programs; (vi) the ability of the Company to make effective acquisitions and successfully integrate newly acquired businesses into existing operations; (vii) risks associated with leverage, including cost increases due to rising interest rates; (viii) risks associated with effectively evaluating derivatives and hedging activities; (ix) changes in regulations and laws (both domestic and foreign), including changes in accounting standards, environmental laws and occupational, health and safety laws; (x) issues related to food safety, including costs resulting from product recalls, regulatory compliance and any related claims or litigation; (xi) adverse results from ongoing litigation; (xii) access to foreign markets together with foreign economic conditions, including currency fluctuations; and (xiii) the effect of, or changes in, general economic conditions.

10

The Company currently has sales offices and production and distribution operations in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Additionally, the Company, either directly or through its subsidiaries, has facilities in or participates in joint venture operations in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Panama, the Philippines, Russia, Spain, the United Kingdom and Venezuela.

Beef  The Company's beef operations consist of 14 beef production facilities and a Canadian cattle feeding operation. These facilities slaughter live cattle, fabricate beef products and treat and tan hides. In addition, one of the beef facilities contains a tallow refinery and two facilities share operations with the pork segment. The carcass facilities reduce live cattle to dressed carcass form. Fed beef consists primarily of steers and heifers specifically raised for beef consumption. The processing facilities conduct fabricating operations to produce boxed beef and allied products. The processing facilities operated in 2002 at approximately 82% of their production capacities. The total slaughter capacity is approximately 240,000 head per week.

Chicken  The Company's chicken operations consist of 61 processing plants. These plants are devoted to various phases of slaughtering, dressing, cutting, packaging, deboning or further-processing. The total slaughter capacity is approximately 49 million head per week. In addition, the Company owns 13 rendering plants with the capacity to produce 28 million pounds of animal protein products per week and 18 ground pet food processing operations in connection with chicken processing plants capable of producing 8 million pounds of product per week. In addition, there are two blending mill operations, 40 feed mills and 74 broiler hatcheries with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the chicken growout operations. During 2002, the feed mills operated at 74% of capacity and the hatcheries operated at 88% of capacity. In general, the remaining processing plants are fully utilized.

Pork  The Company's pork operations consist of eight pork production facilities that slaughter live hogs, fabricate pork products and allied products. Two of these facilities are shared with the beef segment. The processing facilities operated in 2002 at approximately 86% of their production capacities. The total slaughter capacity of these facilities is approximately 420,000 head per week. Upon completion of the restructuring of the live swine operations the Company expects to have 71 swine farrowing and nursery units and 21 swine finishing units. This process is expected to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal 2003. The Company also purchases live swine from contract growers. The swine growout operations are supported by one dedicated feed mill supplemented by the production from the chicken operations' feed mills.

Prepared Foods  The Company's prepared foods operations consist of 34 processing plants which process fresh beef, pork, chicken and other raw materials into pizza toppings, branded and processed meats, appetizers, hors d'oeuvres, desserts, ethnic foods, soups, sauces, side dishes and pizza crusts, flour and corn tortilla products and specialty pasta and meat dishes. These processing plants have the capacity to produce approximately 58 million pounds per week and operated in 2002 at approximately 79% of capacity.

Other  The Company's other operations consist of three warehouses and 11 freezers used by the beef and pork divisions, 44 cold storage facilities at chicken processing plants, three cold storage facilities at chicken rendering plants, five cold storage facilities used by prepared foods plants, three distribution centers used by the chicken division and five distribution centers used by the prepared foods division with a total capacity of approximately 300 million pounds.

        The Company owns its major operating facilities with the following exceptions: one chicken primary processing plant is leased until 2003, one chicken emulsified plant is leased month to month, one chicken distribution center is leased until 2003, one feedmill and two hatcheries are leased until 2003, one hatchery is leased month to month, 422 chicken breeder farm houses are leased under agreements expiring at various dates through 2005 and 31 chicken breeder farm houses are leased month to month, 30 broiler farms are leased year to year. Upon completion of the restructuring of the live swine operations the Company expects to have 16 units leased, with the majority expiring in 2003, one prepared foods distribution center is leased month to month, two prepared foods further processing facilities are leased until 2004 and 2005, and one prepared foods appetizer manufacturing facility is leased until 2013.

11

        Management believes that the Company's present facilities are generally adequate and suitable for its current purposes. However, seasonal fluctuations in inventories and production may occur as a reaction to market demands for certain products. The Company regularly engages in construction and other capital improvement projects intended to expand capacity and improve the efficiency of its processing and support facilities.

Wage and Hour/ Labor Matters  In 2000, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) conducted an industry-wide investigation of poultry producers, including the Company, to ascertain compliance with various wage and hour issues. As part of this investigation, the DOL inspected 14 of the Company's processing facilities. On May 9, 2002, the Secretary of Labor filed a civil complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act at the Company's chicken-processing facility in Blountsville, Alabama. The complaint does not contain a definite statement of what acts constituted alleged violations of the statute. The Secretary seeks back wages for all employees at the Blountsville facility for a period of two years prior to the date of the filing of the Complaint, an additional amount in liquidated damages, and an injunction against future violations at that facility and all other facilities operated by the Company. The Company has filed its initial answer and discovery has commenced. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made in this case and intends to vigorously defend the case. However, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

On June 22, 1999, 11 current and former employees of the Company filed the case of M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (Fox v. Tyson) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama claiming the Company violated requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit alleges the Company failed to pay employees for all hours worked and/or improperly paid them for overtime hours. The suit specifically alleges that (1) employees should be paid for time taken to put on and take off certain working supplies at the beginning and end of their shifts and breaks and (2) the use of "mastercard" or "line" time fails to pay employees for all time actually worked. Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly situated current and former employees of the Company. At filing 159 current and/or former employees consented to join the lawsuit and, to date, approximately 5,000 consents have been filed with the court. Discovery in this case is ongoing. A hearing was held on March 6, 2000, to consider the plaintiff's request for collective action certification and court-supervised notice. No decision has been rendered. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made and intends to vigorously defend the case; however, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

Substantially similar suits have been filed against several other integrated poultry companies. In addition, organizing activity conducted by representatives or affiliates of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union against the poultry industry has encouraged worker participation in Fox v. Tyson and the other lawsuits.

On August 22, 2000, seven employees of the Company filed the case of De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit is similar to Fox v. Tyson in that the employees claim violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for allegedly failing to pay for time taken to put on, take off and sanitize certain working supplies, and violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly situated current and former employees of the poultry processing plants in New Holland, Pennsylvania. Currently, there are approximately 500 additional current or former employees who have filed consents to join the lawsuit. The court, on January 30, 2001, ordered that notice of the lawsuit be issued to all potential plaintiffs at the New Holland facilities. On July 17, 2002, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the state law claims. The Compan y believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made and intends to defend the case vigorously; however, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

On November 5, 2001, a lawsuit entitled Maria Chavez, et al. vs. IBP, Lasso Acquisition Corporation and Tyson Foods, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against IBP and Tyson by several employees of IBP's Pasco, Washington, beef slaughter and processing facility alleging various violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 - - 

12

219 (FLSA), as well as violations of the Washington State Minimum Wage Act, RCW chapter 49.46, Industrial Welfare Act, RCW chapter 49.12, and the Wage Deductions-Contribution-Rebates Act, RCW chapter 49.52. The lawsuit alleges IBP and/or Tyson required employees to perform unpaid work related to the donning and doffing of certain personal protective clothing, both prior to and after their shifts, as well as during meal periods. Plaintiffs further allege that similar prior litigation entitled Alvarez, et al. vs. IBP, which resulted in a $3.1 million final judgment against IBP, supports a claim of collateral estoppel and/or is res judicata as to the issues raised in this new litigation. IBP filed a timely Notice of Appeal and will vigorously pursue reversal of the Alvarez judgment before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Chavez initially was pursued as an opt-in, collective action under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), but on May 24, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certif ication of a class of opt-out, state law plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On October 28, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted plaintiffs' motion (Rule 23 Order), asserting supplemental jurisdiction over the state law wage and hour claims, and certifying the class. On November 6, 2002, IBP and Tyson timely filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking leave to appeal the District Court's Rule 23 Order.

Environmental Matters  On January 15, 1997, the Illinois EPA brought suit in the Circuit Court for the 14th Judicial Circuit, Rock Island, Illinois, Chancery Division against IBP alleging that IBP's operations at its Joslin, Illinois, facility are violating the "odor nuisance" regulations enacted in the State of Illinois. IBP has already completed additional improvements at its Joslin facility to further reduce odors from this operation, but denies Illinois EPA's contention that its operations at any time amounted to a "nuisance." IBP is attempting to discuss these issues with the State of Illinois in an effort to reach a settlement.

The Company has been advised by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Western District of Missouri that the government intends to seek indictment of the Company for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act related to activities at its Sedalia, Missouri facility. The Company is presently in negotiations for a possible resolution of this matter. Although the amount of ultimate liability with respect to this matter cannot be determined at this time, the Company does not expect any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results or operations.

On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, against the Company by R. Lynn Thompson and Deborah S. Thompson on behalf of all owners of Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's littoral (lake front) property. The suit alleges that the Company "or entities over which it has operational control" conduct operations in such a way as to interfere with the putative class action plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, allegedly caused by diminished water quality in the lake. The Company believes the complaint allegations are unfounded and intends to vigorously defend the case.

On December 10, 2001, the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma and the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma the case styled the The City of Tulsa and the Tulsa Municipal Utility Authority v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. against the Company, Cobb-Vantress, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, four other fully integrated poultry companies and the City of Decatur, Arkansas. With respect to the Company and Cobb-Vantress, Inc., the suit alleges that degradation of the Tulsa water supply is attributable, in whole or in part, to the non-point source run-off from the land application of poultry litter in the watershed feeding the lakes that act as the City of Tulsa's water supply, and that the Company and Cobb-Vantress, Inc. are, together with the other defendants named in the lawsuit, jointly and severally responsible for the alleged over application of poultry litter in the watershed. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are unfounded and intends to vigorously defend the case.

Securities Matters  Between January and March 2001, a number of lawsuits were filed by certain stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota and one suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to certify a class of all persons who purchased IBP stock between February 7, 2000 and January 25, 2001. The plaintiff in the New York action has voluntarily dismissed and refiled its complaint in South Dakota, where the suits have been consolidated under the name In re IBP, inc. Securities Litigation. The complaints, seeking unspecified damages, allege that IBP and certain members of management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and claims IBP issued materially false statements about IBP's financial results in order to inflate its stock price. IBP filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2001, which is now ful ly briefed and pending before the Court. IBP intends to vigorously contest these claims.

On or about June 6, 2001, IBP was advised the SEC had commenced a formal investigation related to the restatement of earnings made by IBP in March 2001, including matters relating to certain improprieties in the financial statements of DFG, a wholly-owned subsidiary. 

13

The Company has been informed that three former employees of DFG received a so-called "Wells" notice advising them that the SEC had determined to recommend the initiation of an enforcement action and providing them an opportunity to provide their arguments against such an enforcement action. IBP is cooperating with this investigation.

IBP Stockholder and Merger Agreement Related Litigation  Between October 2 and November 1, 2000, 14 class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Delaware Court) against IBP, inc. and the members of the IBP Board of Directors. On November 13, 2000, these actions were consolidated as In re IBP, inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 18373 (the Consolidated Action).

On March 29, 2001, the Company filed an action in the Chancery Court of Washington County, Arkansas, entitled Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. v. IBP, inc., Case No. E 2001-749-4, alleging that the Company had been inappropriately induced to enter into a Merger Agreement with IBP dated January 1, 2001 (the Merger Agreement), and that IBP was in breach of various representations and warranties made in the Merger Agreement.

On March 30, 2001, IBP filed an answer to the amended consolidated complaint and a cross-claim (amended on April 2, 2001) against the Company in the Consolidated Action. As amended, IBP's cross-claim sought a declaration that the Company could not rescind or terminate the Merger Agreement, specific enforcement of the Merger Agreement and damages for breach of a Confidentiality Agreement.

Following expedited discovery, the Delaware Court conducted a nine day trial, beginning on May 14, 2001, on IBP's and the plaintiffs' claims for specific performance with respect to the terminated cash tender offer and the Merger Agreement and the Company's counterclaims. On June 15, 2001, following expedited post-trial briefing, the Delaware Court issued a memorandum opinion, which was issued in revised form on June 18, 2001 (the Post-Trial Opinion), in which the Delaware Court concluded, among other things, that (1) the Merger Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract that was not induced by any material misrepresentation or omission, (2) the Company did not breach the Merger Agreement or any duty to IBP's stockholders by failing to close the terminated cash tender offer, (3) the Company did not have a basis to terminate the Merger Agreement under its terms, and (4) specific performance of the Merger Agreement was the only method by which to adequately redress the harm threatened to IBP and its stockholders.

After negotiations and in accordance with the Post-Trial Opinion, the Company and IBP presented an Order, Judgment and Decree to the Delaware Court, entered on June 27, 2001, requiring the Company and its affiliates to specifically perform the Merger Agreement as modified by, and subject to the conditions contained in, a Stipulation between the Company and IBP, including making a cash tender offer for 50.1% of IBP's shares and effecting the merger with IBP.

On August 3, 2001, the Delaware Court entered an order approving the settlement of the Consolidated Action and extinguished all claims that were or could have been asserted by the IBP stockholders in the Consolidated Action in exchange for, among other things, the acceleration of the closing of a new Cash Tender Offer to August 3, 2001.

On January 7, 2002, the Company filed a motion in the Delaware Court asking that court to vacate its Post-Trial Opinion on grounds of mootness or, in the alternative, to enter final judgment so that an appeal could be taken. The Delaware Court denied this motion on February 11, 2002, and the Company has appealed that decision, as well as the Post-Trial Opinion and certain earlier rulings by the Delaware Court, to the Delaware Supreme Court. Certain of the plaintiffs in the Delaware Federal Actions discussed below have filed a motion to dismiss the Company's appeal as untimely as to all matters except the Delaware Court's denial of the motion to vacate the Post-Trial Opinion. On July 24, 2002, the Delaware Supreme Court granted that partial motion to dismiss and directed that the balance of the appeal to go forward. Oral argument on the balance of the appeal has been scheduled for December 12, 2002.

On June 19, 2001, a purported Company stockholder commenced a derivative action in the Delaware Court entitled Alan Shapiro v. Barbara R. Allen, et al., C.A. No. 18967-NC seeking monetary damages on behalf of the Company, a nominal defendant, from the members of the Company's Board of Directors. The complaint alleges the directors violated their fiduciary duties by attempting to terminate the Merger Agreement. On July 17, 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On August 16, 2002, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on September 3, 2002, the defendants renewed their motion to dismiss. A hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss has been scheduled for December 17, 2002. The defendants intend to vigorously defend these claims.

14

Between June 22 and July 20, 2001, various plaintiffs commenced actions (the Delaware Federal Actions) against the Company, Don Tyson, John Tyson and Les Baledge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking monetary damages on behalf of a purported class of those who sold IBP stock or traded in certain IBP options from March 29, 2001, when the Company announced its intention to terminate the Merger Agreement with IBP, and June 15, 2001, when the Delaware Court rendered its Post-Trial Opinion in the Consolidated Action. The actions, entitled Meyer v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-425 SLR; Banyan Equity Mgt. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-426 GMS; Steiner v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-462 GMS; Aetos Corp., et al. v. Tyson, et al., C.A. No. 01-463 GMS; Meyers, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-480; Binsky v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-495; Ma nagement Risk Trading LP v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-496; and Stark Investments, L.P., et al. v. Tyson et al., C.A. No. 01-565 allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making, or causing to be made, false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's attempted termination of the Merger Agreement. The various actions were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the defendants' alleged conduct, the purported class members were harmed. On January 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. By memorandum order dated October 23, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants intend to vigorously defend the remaining claims.

In December 2001, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware against the Company's Board of Directors and nominally, the Company. The complaint concerns the alleged violations of immigration laws that are the subject of the indictment by the U.S. Department of Justice (see below). In general, the complaint alleges that the members of the Company's Board failed to exercise reasonable control and supervision over the Company's employees and processes, implement adequate internal controls, adequately inform themselves, or take adequate and good faith remedial actions with respect to the Company's immigration practices and matters giving rise to the indictment. The complaint seeks unspecified damages against the individual Board members; no relief is sought against the Company. The Company and members of its Board have filed a motion to dismiss in the Chancery Court of Delaware and intend to vigorously defend these claims.

General Matters  On or around February 15, 2002, the Company learned that a processing facility owned by Zemco Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of IBP, is the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Bangor, Maine, into allegedly improper testing and recording practices. The Company acquired Zemco as part of the Company's acquisition of IBP on September 28, 2001. Zemco has responded to grand jury subpoenas and is cooperating fully with the U.S. Attorney's office. Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this matter can be determined at this time.

In December 2001, the Company, two current employees and four former employees were indicted in the U. S. District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee. The indictment alleges these six employees conspired to violate and did violate immigration laws involving approximately 15 named individuals at one of the Company's poultry processing facilities. The indictment also alleges that the Company utilized the services of temporary employment agencies in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. The indictment seeks fines and forfeiture of amounts not specified. Trial for this matter is expected in February 2003. The Company intends to vigorously defend this indictment and believes it has meritorious defenses to the government's theories of recovery; however, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

Consistent with the forfeiture theory advanced in the indictment referred to above, private plaintiffs filed the following three lawsuits.

On April 10, 2002, plaintiffs filed Trollinger, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 4:02-cv-23 (E.D. Tenn.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Winchester Division), a purported class-action lawsuit against Tyson, on behalf of all current and former employees of 15 named Tyson facilities who had been legally authorized to work in the United States. The complaint in that action asserts a claim against Tyson under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. The complaint alleges that Tyson engaged in a scheme to depress its employees' wages by hiring illegal aliens and seeks unspecified trebled-damages. The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint. On July 17, 2002, the court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal. The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims; however, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

15

On March 6, 2002, plaintiffs filed Baker, et al. vs. IBP, inc., C.A. No. 02-4019 (C.D. Ill) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Rock Island Division), a purported class-action lawsuit, on behalf of all current and former employees of IBP's Joslin, Illinois, facility who had been legally authorized to work in the United States. The complaint asserts a claim against IBP under the RICO statute. The complaint alleges that IBP engaged in a scheme to depress its employees' wages by hiring illegal aliens and seeks unspecified trebled-damages. The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint. On October 21, 2002, the court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal. The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims; however, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

On April 17, 2002, plaintiff Cynthia Cruz filed Cruz vs. Tyson Foods, Inc., C.A. No. 02 C 2761 (N.D. Ill.), a purported class-action lawsuit against Tyson and others on behalf of all persons with Hispanic surnames whose identities and social security numbers were allegedly "stolen" and misused by the named defendants. The complaint asserts a claim under the RICO statute, a claim for violation of the federal civil rights statute, and common-law claims for defamation, violation of privacy and property rights, fraud, and tortious interference with contract. As of this date, the Company has moved to dismiss this action, with briefing to be completed during December 2002. The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims; however, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

In July 1996, a lawsuit was filed against IBP by certain cattle producers in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama, seeking certification of a class of all cattle producers. The complaint alleges that IBP has used its market power and alleged "captive supply" agreements to reduce the prices paid to producers for cattle. Plaintiffs have disclosed that, in addition to declaratory relief, they seek actual and punitive damages. The original motion for class certification was denied by the Court; plaintiffs then amended their motion, defining a narrower class consisting of only those cattle producers who sold cattle directly to IBP from 1994 through the date of certification. The Court approved this narrower class in April 1999. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision to certify a class on the basis that there were inherent conflicts amongst class members preventing the named plaintiffs from providing adequate representation to the cla ss. The plaintiffs then filed pleadings seeking to certify an amended class. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion on October 17, 2000. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the judge's decision was denied, and plaintiffs then asked the Court to certify a class of cattle producers who have sold exclusively to IBP on a cash market basis, which the Court granted in December 2001. In January 2002, IBP filed a petition with the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the class certification decision, which the Circuit Court of Appeals denied on March 5, 2002. The District Court has set a schedule for completing the format of the class notice mailing. No trial date has been set. IBP has filed motions for summary judgment on both liability and damages filed with the District Court, which are now pending. Plaintiffs have claimed damages in the case in excess of $500,000,000. Management believes IBP has acted properly and lawfully in its dealings with cattle producers and inte nds to vigorously defend this case. However, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

On August 8, 2000, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona styled Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, Limited Partnership v. Alcon Laboratories, et al., CIV00-0661 PHX PGR. The plaintiff sued the Company, along with approximately 100 other defendants in the food, beverage, drug, cosmetic and tobacco industries, claiming that the defendants infringed various patents held by the Foundation. The alleged patent infringement is based on the defendants' alleged use of the Foundation's automatic identification patents that relate to the use of bar coding and/or the Foundation's patents that relate to machine vision. The Foundation seeks treble damages for the defendants' alleged infringement. The case is currently stayed pending the resolution of related litigation. Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case ca n be determined at this time.

On September 12, 2002, 82 individual plaintiffs filed Michael Archer, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and The Pork Group, Inc., CIV 2002-497, in the Circuit Court of Pope County, Arkansas. On August 18, 2002, the Company announced a restructuring of its live swine operations which, among other things, will result in the discontinuance of relationships with 132 contract hog producers, including the 

16

plaintiffs. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company committed fraud and should be promissorily estopped from terminating the parties' relationship. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. The Company has filed a motion to Stay All Proceedings and Compel Arbitration. The plaintiffs have responded to the Motion to Compel. Discovery has not begun. The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims; however, neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this time.

The Company is pursuing various antitrust claims relating to vitamins, methionine and choline. In the third quarter of 2002 the Company received approximately $30 million in partial settlement of these claims. The Company has received, or expects to receive under signed settlement arrangements, further settlements of approximately $26 million in the first quarter of 2003. Additional settlements are anticipated. Amounts received for these claims are recorded as income only upon receipt of settlement proceeds.

Other Matters The Company is subject to other lawsuits, investigations and claims (some of which involve substantial amounts) arising out of the conduct of its business. While the ultimate results of these matters cannot be determined, they are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Not applicable.

Officers of the Company serve one year terms from the date of their election, or until their successors are appointed and qualified. The name, title, age and year of initial election to executive office of the Company's executive officers are listed below:

No family relationships exist among the above officers. Mr. John Tyson was appointed Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer in 2001 after serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer since 2000, Chairman of the Board of Directors since 1998, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors since 1997 and President, Beef and Pork Division since 1993. Mr. Bond was appointed Co-Chief Operating Officer and Group President, Fresh Meats and Retail in 2001 after serving as President and Chief Operating Officer of IBP from March 1997 until the merger of IBP into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company 

17

on September 28, 2001, and as President, IBP Fresh Meats from 1995 to 1997. Mr. Lee was appointed Co-Chief Operating Officer and Group President, Food Service and International in 2001 after serving as Chief Operating Officer since 1999, as President of the Foodservice Group since 1998 and Executive Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Technical Services since 1995. Mr. Baledge was appointed Executive Vice President and General Counsel in 2000 after serving as Executive Vice President and Associate General Counsel since 1999 upon joining Tyson. Prior to joining Tyson, Mr. Baledge was of counsel to the law firm of Kutak Rock LLP and a partner with the Rose Law Firm. Mr. Hankins was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in 1998 after serving as Senior Vice President, Financial Planning and Shared Services since 1997 and Vice President, Management Information Systems since 1993. Mr. Leman was appointed Senior Group Vice President, Fresh Meats in 2001 a fter serving as IBP's President of Fresh Meats since 1997 until the merger of IBP into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company on September 28, 2001, and as President of IBP's Allied Group since 1995. Mr. Leatherby was appointed Senior Vice President, Finance and Treasurer in 1998 after serving as Vice President and Treasurer since 1997 and Treasurer since 1994. Mr. Pless was elected Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer in 2001 after serving as Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer since 2000. Prior to joining Tyson, Mr. Pless was Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer for TransMontaigne.

18

The Company currently has issued and outstanding two classes of capital stock, Class A Common Stock (Class A stock) and Class B Common Stock (Class B stock). Holders of Class B stock may convert such stock into Class A stock on a share-for-share basis. Holders of Class B stock are entitled to 10 votes per share while holders of Class A stock are entitled to one vote per share on matters submitted to shareholders for approval. On October 31, 2002, there were approximately 41,000 holders of record of the Company's Class A stock and 17 holders of record of the Company's Class B stock, excluding holders in the security position listings held by nominees.

Cash dividends cannot be paid to holders of Class B stock unless they are simultaneously paid to holders of Class A stock. The per share amount of the cash dividend paid to holders of Class B stock cannot exceed 90% of the cash dividend simultaneously paid to holders of Class A stock. The Company has paid uninterrupted quarterly dividends on its common stock each year since 1977. The annual dividend rate for Class A stock is $0.16 per share and the annual dividend rate for Class B stock is $0.144 per share.

The Class A stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TSN." No public trading market currently exists for the Class B stock. The high and low sales prices of the Company's Class A stock for each quarter of fiscal 2002 and 2001 are represented in the table below.

19