COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	9 Months Ended
Apr. 27, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Off-balance Sheet Arrangements	COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities We have outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of April 27, 2019. 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 or other debt obligations with remaining terms that range from less than one year to eleven years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately seven years. For each guarantee issued, if the wholesale customer or other third-party defaults on a payment, we would be required to make payments under our guarantee. Generally, the guarantees are secured by indemnification agreements or personal guarantees of the primary obligor/retailer. We review performance risk related to our guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of April 27, 2019, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments we would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $41.9 million ($29.1 million on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, we believe the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under our guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis. We are contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions. We 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 our lease assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, we believe the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. No amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under our guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis. We are a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which we 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 our 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 us and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While our aggregate indemnification obligations could result in a material liability, we are not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. No amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis. In connection with Supervalu’s sale of New Albertson’s, Inc. (“NAI”) on March 21, 2013, we remain 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 Supervalu’s subsidiary. Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie our commitments, we believe 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 state governmental authorities. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized most of the self-insurance obligations for which we remain contingently liable, we believe that the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees, as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis. Agreements with Save-A-Lot and Onex The Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Supervalu sold the Save-A-Lot business in 2016 (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, Supervalu entered into a Separation Agreement (the “Separation Agreement”) with Moran Foods, LLC d/b/a Save-A-Lot (“Moran Foods”), which contains indemnification obligations and covenants related to the separation of the assets and liabilities of the Save-A-Lot business from us. We also entered into a Services Agreement with Moran Foods (the “Services Agreement”), pursuant to which we are 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. The initial annual base charge under the Services Agreement is $30 million, 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 our aggregate indemnification obligations to Save-A-Lot and Onex could result in a material liability, we are not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. We have recorded the fair value of the guarantee in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets within Other long-term liabilities. 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”). Supervalu is now providing services to NAI and Albertson’s LLC to transition and wind down the TSA. On October 17, 2017, Supervalu entered into a letter agreement with each of Albertson’s LLC and NAI pursuant to which the parties agreed that the TSA would expire on September 21, 2018 as to those services that we are providing to Albertson’s LLC and NAI, other than with respect to certain limited transition and wind down services. The parties do not expect any of these services, or any of the transition and wind down services, to extend beyond October 2019. We also agreed that Albertson’s would no longer provide services to us after September 21, 2019. Other Contractual Commitments In the ordinary course of business, we enter 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 April 27, 2019, we had approximately $0.3 million of non-cancelable future purchase obligations. Legal Proceedings We are 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 our overall results of our operations, cash flows or financial position is remote. 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 of Supervalu’s assets 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 alleged 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 divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. At a mediation on May 25, 2017, Supervalu reached a settlement with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which was the one Midwest class suing Supervalu. The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017. The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of wrongdoing and liability by Supervalu; (2) release of all Midwest plaintiffs’ claims against Supervalu related to the allegations and transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class; and (3) payment by Supervalu of $9 million. The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims against Supervalu, which at this time are determined as remote. On February 15, 2018, Supervalu filed a summary judgment and Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court granted Supervalu’s motions. The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit on August 15, 2018. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusion into Supervalu’s computer network that were previously announced by Supervalu in its fiscal 2015. 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. On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14 out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th Circuit did not consider Supervalu’s cross-appeal and remanded the case back for consideration of Supervalu’s additional arguments for dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff. On October 30, 2017, Supervalu filed a motion to dismiss the remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint. The court held a hearing on the motions on December 14, 2017, and on March 7, 2018, the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend and granted Supervalu’s motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2019, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiff’s appeal affirming the District Court’s dismissal of the case. Supervalu had $50 million of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 million at the time of the criminal intrusion, which the Company believes should cover any potential loss related to this litigation. 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. We regularly monitor our exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change our predictions with respect to outcomes and estimates with respect to related costs and exposures. With respect to the matters discussed above, we believe 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 our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities

We have outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of April 27, 2019. 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 or other debt obligations with remaining terms that range from less than one year to eleven years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately seven years. For each guarantee issued, if the wholesale customer or other third-party defaults on a payment, we would be required to make payments under our guarantee. Generally, the guarantees are secured by indemnification agreements or personal guarantees of the primary obligor/retailer.

We review performance risk related to our guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of April 27, 2019, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments we would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $41.9 million ($29.1 million on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, we believe the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under our guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis.

We are contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions. We 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 our lease assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, we believe the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. No amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under our guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis.

We are a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which we 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 our 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 us and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While our aggregate indemnification obligations could result in a material liability, we are not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. No amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis.

In connection with Supervalu’s sale of New Albertson’s, Inc. (“NAI”) on March 21, 2013, we remain 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 Supervalu’s subsidiary. Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie our commitments, we believe 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 state governmental authorities. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized most of the self-insurance obligations for which we remain contingently liable, we believe that the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees, as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis.

Agreements with Save-A-Lot and Onex

The Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Supervalu sold the Save-A-Lot business in 2016 (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, Supervalu entered into a Separation Agreement (the “Separation Agreement”) with Moran Foods, LLC d/b/a Save-A-Lot (“Moran Foods”), which contains indemnification obligations and covenants related to the separation of the assets and liabilities of the Save-A-Lot business from us. We also entered into a Services Agreement with Moran Foods (the “Services Agreement”), pursuant to which we are 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. The initial annual base charge under the Services Agreement is $30 million, 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 our aggregate indemnification obligations to Save-A-Lot and Onex could result in a material liability, we are not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. We have recorded the fair value of the guarantee in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets within Other long-term liabilities.

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”). Supervalu is now providing services to NAI and Albertson’s LLC to transition and wind down the TSA. On October 17, 2017, Supervalu entered into a letter agreement with each of Albertson’s LLC and NAI pursuant to which the parties agreed that the TSA would expire on September 21, 2018 as to those services that we are providing to Albertson’s LLC and NAI, other than with respect to certain limited transition and wind down services. The parties do not expect any of these services, or any of the transition and wind down services, to extend beyond October 2019. We also agreed that Albertson’s would no longer provide services to us after September 21, 2019.

Other Contractual Commitments

In the ordinary course of business, we enter 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 April 27, 2019, we had approximately $0.3 million of non-cancelable future purchase obligations.

Legal Proceedings

We are 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 our overall results of our operations, cash flows or financial position is remote.

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 of Supervalu’s assets 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 alleged 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 divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. At a mediation on May 25, 2017, Supervalu reached a settlement with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which was the one Midwest class suing Supervalu. The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017. The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of wrongdoing and liability by Supervalu; (2) release of all Midwest plaintiffs’ claims against Supervalu related to the allegations and transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class; and (3) payment by Supervalu of $9 million. The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims against Supervalu, which at this time are determined as remote. On February 15, 2018, Supervalu filed a summary judgment and Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court granted Supervalu’s motions. The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit on August 15, 2018.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusion into Supervalu’s computer network that were previously announced by Supervalu in its fiscal 2015. 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. On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14 out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th Circuit did not consider Supervalu’s cross-appeal and remanded the case back for consideration of Supervalu’s additional arguments for dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff. On October 30, 2017, Supervalu filed a motion to dismiss the remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint. The court held a hearing on the motions on December 14, 2017, and on March 7, 2018, the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend and granted Supervalu’s motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2019, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiff’s appeal affirming the District Court’s dismissal of the case. Supervalu had $50 million of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 million at the time of the criminal intrusion, which the Company believes should cover any potential loss related to this litigation.

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. We regularly monitor our exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change our predictions with respect to outcomes and estimates with respect to related costs and exposures.

With respect to the matters discussed above, we believe 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 our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.