NOTE 13—COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
Guarantees
The Company has guaranteed certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of February 23, 2013. These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of independent retail customers. The guarantees are generally for the entire terms of the leases or other debt obligations with remaining terms that range from less than one year to 17 years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately nine years. For each guarantee issued, if the independent retail customer defaults on a payment, the Company would be required to make payments under its guarantee. Generally, the guarantees are secured by indemnification agreements or personal guarantees of the independent retail customer. The Company reviews performance risk related to its guarantees of independent retail customers based on internal measures of credit performance. As of February 23, 2013, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $84 and represented $60 on a discounted basis. Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, the Company believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under the Company’s guarantee arrangements.
The Company is contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions. The Company 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 the Company’s assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, the Company believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote.
In the ordinary course of business, the Company 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 23, 2013, the Company had approximately $364 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations. The Company is a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which the Company may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters, which indemnities may be secured by operation of law or otherwise, in the ordinary course of business. These contracts primarily relate to the Company’s commercial contracts, operating leases and other real estate contracts, financial agreements, agreements to provide services to the Company and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While the Company’s aggregate indemnification obligation could result in a material liability, the Company is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability.
Refer to Note 16—Subsequent Events in the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding the Company’s guarantees of certain debt obligations of American Stores Company, a subsidiary NAI, subsequent to February 23, 2013.
Legal Proceedings
The Company 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, it is remote that the ultimate outcome of any lawsuits, claims and other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the overall results of the Company’s operations, its cash flows or its financial position.
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, 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 who allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company 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. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.
In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“C&S”) was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation’s bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of 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 the Company 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 the Company’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 the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing.
On October 24, 2012, the Office of Self-Insurance Plans, a program within the director’s office of the California Department of Industrial Relations (the “DIR”), notified the Company that additional security was required to be posted in connection with the Company’s California self-insured workers’ compensation obligations of New Albertsons and certain other subsidiaries pursuant to applicable regulations. The notice from the DIR stated that the additional security was required as a result of an increase in estimated future liabilities, as determined by the DIR pursuant to a review of the self-insured California workers’ compensation claims with respect to the applicable businesses, and a decline in the Company’s net worth. A security deposit of $271 was demanded in addition to security of $427 provided through the Company’s participation in California’s Self-Insurer’s Security Fund. The Company has appealed this demand. The California Self-Insurers’ Security Fund (the “Fund”) has attempted to create a secured interest in certain assets of New Albertsons for the total amount of the additional security deposit. The dispute with the Fund and the DIR has been resolved through a settlement agreement as part of the NAI Banner Sale and the primary obligation to the Fund and the DIR has been retained by NAI following the NAI Banner Sale.
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. The Company 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 two pending matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a negative outcome is remote. It is possible, although management believes it 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 the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.