SEABOARD CORP /DE/

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

Note 1 – Basis of Presentation and Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of Seaboard Corporation and its subsidiaries (“Seaboard”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the rules and regulations for reporting on Form 10-Q. Accordingly, they do not include certain information and disclosures required for comprehensive financial statements. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Seaboard’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 (“2024 10-K”). The unaudited financial information reflects all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of the results of operations, financial position and cash flows for the periods presented. Seaboard’s first three quarterly periods include approximately 13 weekly periods ending on the Saturday closest to the end of March, June and September. Results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the full year.

Related-Party Transactions

Seaboard has investments in non-consolidated affiliates to further its business strategies and partner with other entities that have expertise in certain industries and countries. These investments are all accounted for using the equity method of accounting. As Seaboard conducts its agricultural commodity trading business with third parties, consolidated subsidiaries and non-consolidated affiliates on an interrelated basis, cost of sales on affiliate sales transactions cannot be distinguished without making numerous assumptions, primarily with respect to mark-to-market accounting for commodity derivatives. Purchases of raw materials or services from related parties included in cost of sales were$20 million and$17 million for the three months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024, respectively, and$35 million and$32 million for the six months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024, respectively.

Other Income, Net

The components of other income, net on the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income for the periods presented were as follows:

Supplemental Cash Flow Information

Non-cash activities for the six months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024, included capital expenditures of $4 million and $11 million, respectively, that were in accounts payable. The following table includes supplemental cash and non-cash information related to leases. Seaboard reports the amortization of right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and changes in operating lease liabilities in other liabilities, exclusive of debt in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.

During the second quarter of 2025, Seaboard sold the majority of its 2024 transferable federal investment tax credits for total proceeds of $77 million, which is included within deferred income taxes in the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows.

Inventories

With the passing of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the federal blender’s credit was replaced by a new clean fuel production tax credit on January 1, 2025. Analogizing to International Accounting Standard 20,Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance, Seaboard elects to recognize these production tax credits in inventories, with an offset to cost of sales, when the economic benefit of the credit is deemed probable. The production tax credits are carried at estimated fair value per the U.S. government model, net of a discount upon expected sale.

Goodwill

The change in the carrying amount of goodwill for the six months ended June 28, 2025 was related to foreign currency translation of $2 million within the Commodity Trading and Milling (“CT&M”) segment.

Recently Adopted Accounting Standards

In Seaboard’s 2024 10-K, Seaboard adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) guidance that requires incremental segment disclosures including the disclosure of significant segment expenses regularly provided to Seaboard’s chief operating decision maker (“CODM”). These additional disclosures were effective for interim reporting periods beginning on January 1, 2025, and were applied retrospectively to the prior financial periods presented herein. See Note 7 to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

Recently Issued Accounting Standards Not Yet Adopted

In December 2023, the FASB issued guidance that requires additional detailed income tax disclosures related to standardization and disaggregation of information in the rate reconciliation and income taxes paid by jurisdiction. Seaboard will adopt this guidance in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025. Seaboard is currently evaluating the impact this guidance will have on its disclosures.

In November 2024, the FASB issued guidance that requires disclosure of incremental income statement expense information on an annual and interim basis, primarily through additional expense disclosures including disaggregation of specific expense categories including, but not limited to, purchases of inventory, employee compensation, depreciation, amortization and selling expenses. Prospective application is required, and retrospective application is permitted. Seaboard will adopt this guidance for the annual reporting period beginning on January 1, 2027, and interim periods within the annual year beginning on January 1, 2028. Seaboard is currently evaluating the impact this guidance will have on its disclosures.

Note 2 – Investments

The following is a summary of the estimated fair value of short-term investments classified as trading securities:

The unrealized gains related to trading securities still held at the end of the respective reporting period were $36 million and $24 million for the three- and six-month periods ended June 28, 2025, respectively, and $5 million and $18 million for the three- and six-month periods ended June 29, 2024, respectively.

Seaboard had $50 million and $40 million of short-term investments denominated in foreign currencies, primarily euros, as of June 28, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively.

As of June 28, 2025 and December 31, 2024, Seaboard had long-term investments of $211 million and $141 million, respectively, classified in other non-current assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. During the second quarter

of 2025, Seaboard invested $50 million in an investment company that owns corporate debt securities. The investment is measured using Net Asset Value (“NAV”) as a practical expedient. See Note 5 to the condensed consolidated financial statements for further discussion. The other long-term investments are primarily in real estate and are accounted for under the equity method of accounting.

Note 3 – Inventories

The following is a summary of inventories:

Note 4 – Lines of Credit, Long-Term Debt, Commitments and Contingencies

Lines of Credit

As of June 28, 2025, the outstanding balances under committed and uncommitted lines of credit were $175 million and $341 million, respectively. Of the total outstanding balance as of June 28, 2025, $231 million was denominated in foreign currencies with $129 million in euro, $83 million in South African rand, and the remaining in various other currencies. As of December 31, 2024, the outstanding balances under committed and uncommitted lines of credit were $175 million and $139 million, respectively. Of the total outstanding balance as of December 31, 2024, $83 million was denominated in foreign currencies, with $62 million in South African rand and the remaining in various other currencies. The weighted average interest rate for outstanding lines of credit was 5.10% and 6.47% as of June 28, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively.

In March 2025, Seaboard amended its committed line of credit agreement. The amendment decreased the amount available under the facility from $450 million to $300 million and extended the maturity date of the facility to March 23, 2026. This line of credit is secured by certain short-term investments, and bears interest at the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) plus an applicable spread. Also in March 2025, Seaboard entered into an uncommitted line of credit agreement with up to $100 million of borrowing availability that is secured by certain eligible accounts receivable of its designated subsidiaries and matures on March 14, 2026. Borrowings under the facility bear interest based on SOFR plus an applicable spread. As of June 28, 2025, there were $5 million in outstanding borrowings under this uncommitted line, secured by $6 million of eligible accounts receivable, classified in Receivables, trade on the condensed consolidated balance sheet, pledged as collateral. Collateral is based on 110% of borrowings under the line.

Long-Term Debt

The following is a summary of long-term debt:

The Term Loan due 2033 credit agreement provides for quarterly payments on the$975 million original principal balance, with the balance due on November 10, 2033, the maturity date. The interest rate was 6.02% and 6.08% as of June 28, 2025

and December 31, 2024, respectively. Seaboard was in compliance with all financial and other restrictive debt covenants under this credit agreement as of June 28, 2025.

Legal Proceedings

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

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

Seaboard has made appropriate and adequate accruals for loss contingencies where necessary as of June 28, 2025. Substantially all of Seaboard’s contingencies are subject to uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, Seaboard is unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued. Seaboard’s assessments, which result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties, are based on estimates and assumptions deemed reasonable by management, including an expected probable loss associated with settling or otherwise resolving such contingencies. These estimates and assumptions may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might change such estimates and assumptions.

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

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

Helms-Burton Act Litigation

On July 21, 2021, a lawsuit was filed by an individual, Odette Blanco de Fernandez (“Ms. de Fernandez”), and the heirs (“Inheritors”) and estates (“Estates”) offour of her siblings (Ms. de Fernandez, together with the Inheritors and the Estates being referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) against Seaboard Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”), making claims under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act (the “Act”). The same Plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit against Seaboard Marine Ltd. (“Seaboard Marine”) on December 20, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Florida District Court”). The complaints in each lawsuit seek unspecified damages (including treble damages) and pre-filing interest as provided in the Act; pre-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses; and such other relief as is just and proper.

The Act provides that any person who knowingly and intentionally “traffics” in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government may be liable to any U.S. national who acquires an ownership interest in such property for money damages in an amount equal to the greater of the current fair market value of the property or the value of the property when confiscated, plus interest from the date of confiscation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and treble damages under certain circumstances. The complaint in each of the cases alleges that the Plaintiffs acquired ownership interests to a 70-year concession to develop port facilities at Mariel Bay, Cuba, and ownership of surrounding land, and that these and other property rights were confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960. The complaints further allege that Seaboard Corporation and Seaboard Marine knowingly and intentionally “trafficked” in the confiscated property within the meaning of the Act by carrying and/or directing cargo to the Port of Mariel.

The Florida District Court in the Seaboard Marine case dismissed the claims of the Inheritors and the Estates because they did not acquire the ownership claims prior to March 1996, as required by the Act. The remaining plaintiff, Ms. de

Fernandez, contends she owns 20% of the companies that were granted the concession and owned land in or around Mariel Bay, Cuba. On August 19, 2022, the Florida District Court granted Seaboard Marine’s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered a Final Judgment (the “Summary Judgment”) in favor of Seaboard Marine. On September 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs appealed the Summary Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Court of Appeals”). On April 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals issued its ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the order of Summary Judgment. Seaboard Marine’s petition seeking further appellate relief was denied on June 10, 2025. On July 22, 2025, the Florida District Court issued an order setting a trial during the court’s two-week calendar period beginning February 9, 2026.

As to the suit against Seaboard Corporation, on October 21, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which principally added allegations that there were other callings made by Seaboard Marine at the Port of Mariel and that Seaboard Corporation engaged in a pattern of doing business with individuals and entities in contravention of U.S. foreign policy. Seaboard Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is currently pending. On September 28, 2022, the Delaware District Court stayed this lawsuit against Seaboard Corporation until 30 days after the outcome of the Appeal in the Seaboard Marine case. In light of the Court of Appeals ruling, the parties filed a joint status report indicating their respective positions on whether and how this case should proceed.

Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties and, if unfavorable, could result in a material liability.

Pork Price-Fixing Antitrust Litigation

On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the “Minnesota District Court”) against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC (“Seaboard Foods”) and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. Additional class action complaints with similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed in the Minnesota District Court, and additional actions by standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating output and limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats, Inc. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motions to Certify the Classes with respect to all three classes.

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

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

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

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

Cereoil and Nolston Litigation

On March 20, 2018, the bankruptcy trustee (the “Trustee”) for Cereoil Uruguay S.A. (“Cereoil”) filed a suit in the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance in Uruguay naming as parties Seaboard Corporation and its subsidiaries, Seaboard Overseas Limited (“SOL”) and Seaboard Uruguay Holdings Ltd. (“Seaboard Uruguay”). Seaboard Corporation has a 45% indirect ownership of Cereoil. The suit (the “Clawback Action”) seeks an order requiring Seaboard Corporation, SOL and Seaboard Uruguay to reimburse Cereoil the amount of approximately $22 million (approximately $30 million with interest at the statutory rate) (the “Clawback Amount”), contending that deliveries of soybeans to SOL pursuant to purchase agreements should be set aside as fraudulent conveyances. Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in this matter and intends to vigorously defend this matter. In the event of an adverse ruling, Seaboard and itstwo subsidiaries could be ordered to pay the Clawback Amount to Cereoil.

On April 27, 2018, the Trustee filed an additional suit in the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance in Uruguay that was served during the second quarter of 2018, naming as parties Seaboard Corporation, SOL, Seaboard Uruguay, all directors of Cereoil, includingtwo individuals employed by Seaboard who served as directors at the behest of Seaboard, and the Chief Financial Officer of Cereoil, an employee of Seaboard who also served at the behest of Seaboard (collectively, the “Cereoil Defendants”). The Trustee contends that the Cereoil Defendants acted with willful misconduct to cause Cereoil’s insolvency and should be ordered to pay all liabilities of Cereoil, net of assets. The bankruptcy filing listed the U.S. dollar equivalent of liabilities of approximately $50 million and assets of approximately $30 million. Based on the information received from the Trustee on the administration of the case and the liquidation of assets, as of June 28, 2025, the U.S. dollar equivalent of liabilities was estimated to be approximately $45 million, and the liquidation value of the remaining assets is negligible. Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in this matter and intends to vigorously defend this matter. In the event of an adverse ruling, Seaboard Corporation and the other Cereoil Defendants could be ordered to pay the liabilities of Cereoil, net of any amounts received from the liquidation of Cereoil’s assets, and could be ordered to pay an inflation adjustment, interest, the Trustee’s fees and other expenses. Any award in this case should be reduced by the amount of any award in the Clawback Action described above that is paid to Cereoil.

On September 30, 2021, HSBC Bank (Uruguay) SA (“HSBC”), a creditor in the Cereoil bankruptcy proceeding pending in Uruguay, filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the “Kansas District Court”) against Seaboard Corporation alleging claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and fraud by concealment based upon a comfort letter, alleged statements by Cereoil personnel (including the Chief Financial Officer serving at the behest of Seaboard), and the same grain transactions that the Trustee challenges as fraudulent conveyances in the Cereoil bankruptcy in Uruguay discussed above. HSBC seeks $10 million plus interest and other relief in excess of $3 million. In March 2022, Seaboard filed a motion to dismiss HSBC’s claims on various grounds. On September 23, 2022, the Kansas District Court dismissedsix of HSBC’sseven claims. Three of those claims, for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and fraud by concealment, can be refiled by HSBC in Uruguay. The other three claims, for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment, were dismissed with prejudice and cannot be refiled unless HSBC successfully appeals the Kansas District Court order. Theone claim not dismissed in this matter is for promissory estoppel. Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to this claim and intends to vigorously defend this matter. In the event of an adverse ruling, Seaboard Corporation could be ordered to pay HSBC the amounts described above.

On May 15, 2018, the Trustee for Nolston S.A. (“Nolston”) filed a suit in the Bankruptcy Court of First Instance in Uruguay that was served during the second quarter of 2018, naming as parties Seaboard Corporation and the other Cereoil Defendants. Seaboard has a 45% indirect ownership of Nolston. The Trustee contends that the Cereoil Defendants acted with willful misconduct to cause Nolston’s insolvency and should be ordered to pay all liabilities of Nolston, net of assets. The bankruptcy filing listed the U.S. dollar equivalent of liabilities of approximately $29 million and assets of approximately $15 million. Based on the administration of the case which resulted in duplicative claims made in the

Cereoil case and the liquidation of assets, as of June 28, 2025, the U.S. dollar equivalent of liabilities was estimated to be approximately $1 million, and there areno remaining assets with any value. Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in this matter and intends to vigorously defend this matter. In the event of an adverse ruling, Seaboard Corporation and the other defendants could be ordered to pay the liabilities of Nolston, and could be ordered to pay an inflation adjustment, interest, the Trustee’s fees and other expenses.

Note 5 – Derivatives and Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The following tables show assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis and the level within the fair value hierarchy used to measure each category of assets and liabilities. Investments that are valued using NAV as a practical expedient are excluded from the fair value hierarchy. The trading securities classified as other current assets below are assets held for Seaboard’s deferred compensation plans.

Financial instruments consisting of cash and cash equivalents, net receivables, accounts payable, and lines of credit are carried at cost, which approximates fair value as a result of the short-term nature of the instruments. The fair value of short-term investments is measured using multiple levels. Debt securities categorized as level 1 in the fair value hierarchy include debt securities held in mutual funds and exchange-traded funds.

Seaboard has an investment in a company that owns corporate debt securities subject to certain redemption restrictions until December 2026. Due to the lack of readily available market prices, this investment is measured using NAV as a practical expedient, and accordingly, is not classified in the fair value hierarchy table above. The NAV of this investment, based on the market value of the debt securities in the portfolio, was $51 million as of June 28, 2025.

The fair value of long-term debt is estimated by comparing interest rates for debt with similar terms and maturities. As Seaboard’s long-term debt is mostly variable-rate, the carrying amount approximates fair value. If Seaboard’s long-term debt was measured at fair value on its condensed consolidated balance sheets, it would have been classified as level 2 in the fair value hierarchy.

Seaboard’s operations are exposed to market risks from changes in commodity prices, foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates and equity prices. Seaboard uses various commodity derivative futures and options contracts to manage some of its risk of price fluctuations for raw materials and other inventories, finished product sales and firm sales commitments. Seaboard also enters into foreign currency exchange agreements to manage the foreign currency exchange rate risk with respect to certain transactions denominated in foreign currencies. From time to time, Seaboard enters into interest rate swap agreements to manage the interest rate risk with respect to certain variable-rate long-term debt and enters into equity futures contracts to manage the equity price risk with respect to certain short-term investments. Although management believes its derivatives are primarily economic hedges, Seaboard does not perform the extensive record-keeping required to account for these types of transactions as hedges for accounting purposes. These derivative contracts are recorded at fair value, with any changes in fair value recognized in the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income. As the derivative contracts are not accounted for as hedges, fluctuations in the related prices or rates could have a material impact on earnings in any given reporting period. The nature of Seaboard’s market risk exposure has not materially changed since December 31, 2024.

Seaboard had the following aggregated outstanding notional amounts related to derivative financial instruments:

Credit risks associated with these derivative contracts are not significant because Seaboard minimizes counterparty exposure by dealing with credit-worthy counterparties and using margin accounts for some commodity contracts. As of June 28, 2025, the maximum amount of credit risk related to foreign currency contracts, had the counterparties failed to perform according to the terms of the contract, was $3 million.

The following table provides the fair value of each type of derivative held and where each derivative is included in the condensed consolidated balance sheets:

Seaboard’s commodity derivative assets and liabilities are presented in the condensed consolidated balance sheets on a net basis, including netting the derivatives with the related margin accounts. As of June 28, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the commodity derivatives had a margin account balance of $59 million and $23 million, respectively, resulting in a net other current asset in the condensed consolidated balance sheets of $38 million and $35 million, respectively.

The following table provides the amount of gain (loss) recognized in income for each type of derivative and where it was recognized in the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income:

Note 6**–**** Stockholders’ Equity and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss**

On May 21, 2025, Seaboard’s Board of Directors approved a share repurchase program authorizing the repurchase of up to $100 million of its outstanding shares of common stock (“Shares”) through December 31, 2027, unless extended or earlier terminated. Under the share repurchase program, Seaboard is authorized to repurchase Shares from time-to-time in the open-market, through block trades, in privately negotiated purchases, pursuant to a trading plan, or by other means, in accordance with federal securities laws and other applicable laws. The timing and volume of share repurchases will be determined by management at its discretion and will depend on a number of factors, including constraints specified in any applicable trading plans, the market price of the Shares, general business and market conditions, alternative investment opportunities, Seaboard’s financial condition and applicable legal requirements. The share repurchase program does not obligate Seaboard to acquire a minimum amount of Shares and the program may be modified, suspended or terminated at any time at Seaboard’s discretion.

During the second quarter of 2025, Seaboard repurchased 8,579 Shares, and retained earnings decreased $24 million as a result of the purchases and related U.S. excise taxes. Shares repurchased were retired and became authorized and unissued shares. As of June 28, 2025, $76 million remained available for repurchase under this program.

The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss (“AOCL”), net of related taxes, were as follows:

Note 7 – Segment Information

Seaboard hassix reportable segments: Pork, CT&M, Marine, Liquid Fuels, Power, and Turkey. Seaboard’s remaining operations are not reportable segments, as defined by the applicable accounting standard, and are classified as All Other. Each of thesix reportable segments is separately managed based on its diverse product or service. All Other primarily represents a sugar and alcohol production and processing operation in Argentina and a jalapeño pepper processing operation in Honduras. There have been no significant segment updates in the second quarter of 2025. For details on each segment’s respective products and services, see Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements included in Seaboard’s 2024 10-K.

Seaboard’s Chief Executive Officer serves as the CODM. The CODM assesses performance and makes key operating decisions based on total operating income (loss) and income (loss) from affiliates. The CODM uses this measure to compare to historical trends and the forecast to assess segment results, allocate capital, make strategic decisions and identify areas of opportunity. Operating income and income from affiliates for segment reporting is prepared on the same basis as that used for consolidated purposes under U.S. GAAP. The CODM does not receive proportionate consolidation information for equity method investments.

The following tables include certain segment information for the three and six months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024, and as of June 28, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The significant segment expense categories align with the information regularly provided to the CODM.

Note 8 – Subsequent Events

On July 4, 2025, the U.S. President signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (“OBBBA”). The OBBBA imposes various changes to U.S. federal income tax regulation, including restoring bonus depreciation, removing the requirement to capitalize and amortize domestic research and development expenditures, increasing interest deductibility and reducing certain international deductions. The OBBBA also included certain modifications to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, including extending the clean fuel production tax credit from 2027 through 2029. Effects of changes in tax laws, including retroactive changes, are recognized in the financial statements in the period that the changes are enacted. Seaboard is currently evaluating the potential impact of the OBBBA on its deferred tax balances and other changes required to its financial statements, which will be reflected in the third quarter 10-Q as the enactment date was after period end.

In July 2025, the Power segment entered into an agreement to construct a new power-generating barge for operation in the Dominican Republic. The total cost estimate of the project is approximately $315 million, with $40 million of anticipated payments during the second half of 2025 based on milestones achieved.