| COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS | Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities Supervalu has outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of February 25, 2017 . These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of Wholesale customers. The guarantees are generally for the entire terms of the leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations with remaining terms that range from less than one year to fourteen years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately eight years. For each guarantee issued, if the Wholesale customer or other third party defaults on a payment, Supervalu would be required to make payments under its guarantee. Generally, the guarantees are secured by indemnification agreements or personal guarantees of the Wholesale customer. Supervalu reviews performance risk related to its guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of February 25, 2017 , the maximum amount of undiscounted payments Supervalu would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $66 ( $52 on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, Supervalu believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. No amount has been recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under Supervalu’s guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimus. Supervalu is contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions. Supervalu could be required to satisfy the obligations under the leases if any of the assignees are unable to fulfill their lease obligations. Due to the wide distribution of Supervalu’s lease assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, Supervalu believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. No amount has been recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under Supervalu’s guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimus. Supervalu is a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which it may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters in the ordinary course of business, which indemnities may be secured by operation of law or otherwise. These agreements primarily relate to Supervalu’s commercial contracts, service agreements, contracts entered into for the purchase and sale of stock or assets, operating leases and other real estate contracts, financial agreements, agreements to provide services to Supervalu and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While Supervalu’s aggregate indemnification obligations could result in a material liability, Supervalu is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. No amount has been recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations as the fair value has been determined to be de minimus. Following the sale of NAI on March 21, 2013, Supervalu remains contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees issued by Supervalu with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was a subsidiary of Supervalu. As of February 25, 2017 , using actuarial estimates as of December 31, 2016, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $122 ( $109 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie Supervalu’s commitments, Supervalu believes that such contingent liabilities will continue to decline. Subsequent to the sale of NAI, NAI collateralized most of these obligations with letters of credit and surety bonds to numerous states. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized most of the self-insurance obligations for which Supervalu remains contingently liable, Supervalu believes that the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. No amount has been recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations and guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimus. Agreements with Save-A-Lot and Onex The SAL Merger Agreement contains customary indemnification obligations of each party with respect to breaches of their respective representations, warranties and covenants, and certain other specified matters, on the terms and subject to the limitations set forth in the SAL Merger Agreement. Similarly, the Separation Agreement contains indemnification obligations and covenants related to the separation of the assets and liabilities of the Save-A-Lot business from Supervalu. Pursuant to the Services Agreement, Supervalu is providing Save-A-Lot various technical, human resources, finance and other operational services for a term of five years, subject to termination provisions that can be exercised by each party. Save-A-Lot paid Supervalu $30 upon entry into the Services Agreement, which will be credited against fees due under the Services Agreement, of which $7 was recognized in Corporate net sales in fiscal 2017. The initial annual base charge under the Services Agreement is $30 , subject to adjustments. The Services Agreement generally requires each party to indemnify the other party against third-party claims arising out of the performance of or the provision or receipt of services under the Services Agreement. While Supervalu’s aggregate indemnification obligations to Save-A-Lot and Onex could result in a material liability, Supervalu is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. The Company has recorded the fair value of the guarantee in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and Affiliates In connection with the sale of NAI, Supervalu entered into various agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and its affiliates related to on-going operations, including a Transition Services Agreement with each of NAI and Albertson’s LLC (collectively, the “TSA”). At the time of the sale of NAI, the TSA had initial terms of approximately 30 months , and are subject to renewal by the parties thereto and also include termination provisions that can be exercised by each party. On September 6, 2016, NAI and Albertson’s LLC each notified Supervalu that it was again exercising its right to renew the term of their respective TSA for an additional year. Pursuant to this notice, each TSA will now expire on September 21, 2018 unless renewed again by notice given no later than September 21, 2017. In addition, Supervalu operates a distribution center in Lancaster, Pennsylvania that is owned by NAI. In March 2017, Supervalu acquired a distribution center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania that will eventually replace the Lancaster facility. On April 16, 2015, Supervalu entered into a letter agreement pursuant to which Supervalu is providing services to NAI and Albertson’s LLC as needed to transition and wind down the TSA. In exchange for these transition and wind down services, Supervalu is entitled to receive eight payments of approximately $6 every six months for aggregate fees of $50 . These payments are separate from and incremental to the fixed and variable fees Supervalu receives under the TSA. Supervalu estimates that the complete transition and wind down of the TSA could take approximately two to three more years. On May 28, 2015, Supervalu entered into a letter agreement with NAI and Albertson’s LLC pursuant to which Supervalu received certain additional rights and benefits, and Supervalu and NAI and Albertson’s LLC (and certain of their affiliates, including Safeway, with respect to provisions of the letter agreement applicable to them) agreed to resolve several issues. Among other matters resolved, NAI, Albertson’s LLC and AB Acquisition agreed to no longer challenge, and waive all rights relating to, Supervalu’s filing with the IRS in fiscal 2015 for a change in accounting method for NAI and its subsidiaries pursuant to the tangible property repair regulations. In consideration for the granting of the additional rights and benefits to Supervalu and the resolution of the various matters under the letter agreement, Supervalu paid $35 to AB Acquisition, the parent entity of NAI and Albertson’s LLC. Haggen In connection with Haggen’s bankruptcy process, Haggen has now closed or sold all 164 of its stores. The transition and wind down of the Haggen transition services agreement occurred in the second quarter of fiscal 2017, with Supervalu now providing limited services in connection with the wind down of the Haggen estate. Supervalu filed approximately $2 of administrative 503(b)(9) priority claims and approximately $8 of unsecured claims with the bankruptcy court, including a number of contingent claims. On September 30, 2016, the bankruptcy court approved settlement agreements resolving Supervalu’s unsecured claims against Haggen. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreements, Supervalu received approximately $3 from Haggen on October 11, 2016, and it anticipates Haggen will make further payments of approximately $2 on account of Supervalu’s claims. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Haggen has agreed not to pursue claw-backs of any transfers made to Supervalu. Supervalu could be exposed to claims from third parties from which Supervalu sourced products, services, licenses and similar benefits on behalf of Haggen. Supervalu has reserved for possible losses related to a portion of these third party claims. It is reasonably possible that Supervalu could experience losses in excess of the amount of such reserves; however, at this time Supervalu cannot reasonably estimate a range of such excess losses because of the factual and legal issues related to whether Supervalu would have liability for any such third-party claims, if such third-party claims were asserted against Supervalu. Information Technology Intrusions Computer Network Intrusions - In fiscal 2015, Supervalu announced it had experienced two separate criminal intrusions into the portion of its computer network that processes payment card transactions for some of its owned and franchised retail stores, including some of its associated stand-alone liquor stores. Some stores owned and operated by Albertson’s LLC and NAI experienced related criminal intrusions. Supervalu provides information technology services to these Albertson’s LLC and NAI stores pursuant to the TSA. Supervalu believes that any losses incurred by Albertson’s LLC or NAI as a result of the intrusions affecting their stores would not be Supervalu’s responsibility. Investigations and Proceedings - As a result of the criminal intrusions, the payment card brands are conducting investigations and, although Supervalu’s network has previously been found to be compliant with applicable data security standards, the forensic investigator working on behalf of the payment card brands has concluded that Supervalu was not in compliance at the time of the intrusions and that the alleged non-compliance caused at least some portion of the compromise of payment card data that allegedly occurred during the intrusions. On August 1, 2016, MasterCard provided notice of its assessment of non-ordinary course expenses and incremental counterfeit fraud losses allegedly incurred by it or its issuers as a result of the criminal intrusions. On September 1, 2016, Supervalu submitted an appeal of the assessment to MasterCard and, on December 5, 2016, MasterCard denied the appeal and imposed a reduced assessment. Supervalu expects the other payment card brands to also allege that Supervalu was not compliant with the applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and that such alleged non-compliance caused the compromise of payment card data during the intrusions. Supervalu believes theses payment card brands will also make claims against Supervalu for non-ordinary course operating expenses and incremental counterfeit fraud losses allegedly incurred by them or their issuers by reason of the intrusions and Supervalu expects to dispute those claims. While Supervalu does not believe that a loss is probable by reason of these as yet unasserted claims, Supervalu believes that a loss in connection with these claims, should they be asserted, is reasonably possible; however, at this time Supervalu cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because the payment card brands’ investigation is ongoing and the payment card brands have not alleged what payment cards they consider to have been compromised, what data from those cards they consider to have been compromised, or the amount of their and/or their issuers’ claimed losses. Similar to the assessment imposed by MasterCard, Supervalu does not currently believe that any amount that may be paid for other payment card brand claims that might be asserted will be material to Supervalu’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. In addition, one payment card brand has placed Supervalu in a “probationary status” for a period of two years following Supervalu’s re-validation as PCI-DSS compliant, during which time Supervalu’s failure to comply with the probationary requirements set forth by the payment card brand could result in the imposition of further conditions, including but not limited to disqualification from the payment system. Supervalu does not anticipate material costs to comply with the probationary requirements. On October 23, 2015, Supervalu received a letter from a multistate group of Attorneys General seeking information regarding the intrusions. Supervalu is cooperating with the request. To date, no claims have been asserted against Supervalu related to this inquiry. If any claims are asserted, Supervalu expects to dispute those claims. As discussed in more detail below in this Note 15 under Legal Proceedings , four class action complaints related to the intrusions have been filed against Supervalu and consolidated into one action and are currently pending. As indicated below, Supervalu believes that the likelihood of a material loss from the four class actions is remote. It is possible that other similar complaints by consumers, banks or others may be filed against Supervalu in connection with the intrusions. Insurance Coverage and Expenses - Supervalu had $50 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 at the time of the intrusions, which it believes should mitigate the financial effect of these intrusions, including claims made or that might be made against Supervalu based on these intrusions. Supervalu now maintains $90 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of approximately $3 , in each case subject to certain sublimits. Other Contractual Commitments In the ordinary course of business, Supervalu enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale and purchase, and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology commitments. These contracts typically include either volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of February 25, 2017 , Supervalu had approximately $322 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations. Legal Proceedings Supervalu is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business. In the opinion of management, based upon currently-available facts, the likelihood that the ultimate outcome of any lawsuits, claims and other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the overall results of Supervalu’s operations, its cash flows or its financial position is remote. In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against Supervalu, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC (“IOS”); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer’s Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a purported class that Supervalu and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. All proceedings had been stayed in the case pending the conclusion of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. The final criminal trial concluded in December 2016. The District Court has indicated that it will release the stay of the civil case and issue a scheduling order. A mediation has been scheduled for May 22, 2017. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“C&S”) was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, Supervalu purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation’s bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of Supervalu to C&S that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that Supervalu and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted Supervalu’s Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted Supervalu’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Supervalu and (2) affirmed the District Court’s decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from Supervalu between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from Supervalu’s Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other distribution centers. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting plaintiffs’ request to seek class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs’ request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs’ request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of retailers in the Midwest and Supervalu filed its response on May 6, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only one of which is suing Supervalu (the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class). On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiffs’ appeals seeking to join an additional New England plaintiff and the appeal seeking the ability to move for class certification of a smaller New England class. The District Court’s mandatory settlement conference set for February 14-15, 2017 was cancelled by the court and a mediation is scheduled for May 25, 2017. Supervalu continues to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the mediation, it is probable that the parties will engage in settlement negotiations, which may result in a settlement of the matter. However, Supervalu cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the procedural status of the case and the lack of a formal demand on Supervalu by the plaintiffs. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by Supervalu in fiscal 2015 (the “Criminal Intrusion”). The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and Supervalu filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the District Court’s dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The hearing on the appeal before the 8th Circuit is set for May 10, 2017. On June 30, 2015, Supervalu received a letter from the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OCR”) seeking documents and information regarding Supervalu’s HIPAA breach notification and reporting from 2009 to the present. The letter indicates that the OCR Midwest Region is doing a compliance review of Supervalu’s alleged failure to report small breaches of protected health information related to its pharmacy operations (e.g., any incident involving less than 500 individuals). On September 4, 2015, Supervalu submitted its response to OCR’s letter. While Supervalu does not believe that a loss is probable by reason of the compliance review, Supervalu believes that a loss is reasonably possible; however, at this time Supervalu cannot estimate a range of possible losses because the OCR’s review is at the early stages and Supervalu does not know if OCR will find a violation(s) and, if so, what violation(s) and whether OCR will proceed with corrective action, issuance of penalties or monetary settlement. The potential penalties related to the issues being investigated are up to $50 thousand per violation (which can be counted per day) with a $1.5 per calendar year maximum for multiple violations of a single provision (with the potential for finding violations of multiple provisions each with a separate $1.5 per calendar year maximum); however, as noted above, any actual penalties will be determined only after consideration by OCR of various factors, including the nature of any violation, remedial actions taken by Supervalu and other factors determined relevant by OCR. On September 21, 2016, Supervalu received an administrative subpoena issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) on September 9, 2016. In addition to requesting information on Supervalu’s pharmacy policies and procedures generally, the subpoena also requested the production of documents that are required to be kept and maintained by Supervalu pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations. On November 23, 2016, Supervalu responded to the subpoena and is cooperating fully with DEA’s additional requests for information. While Supervalu cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time, Supervalu does not believe that a monetary loss is probable. However, Supervalu believes that a monetary loss is reasonably possible, but cannot estimate the amount of any such loss as Supervalu does not know what violation(s) the DEA will find and whether the DEA will pursue corrective action or monetary penalties. Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary materially from current expectations. Supervalu regularly monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change its predictions with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related costs and exposures. With respect to the IOS, Criminal Intrusion and OCR matters discussed above, Supervalu believes the chance of a material loss is remote. It is possible, although management believes that the likelihood is remote, that material differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on Supervalu’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |
