COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

12 Months Ended

Jul. 29, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

NOTE 17—COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities

The Company has outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of July 29, 2023. 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 seven years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately four years. For each guarantee issued, if the wholesale customer or other third-party 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. The Company reviews performance risk related to its guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of July 29, 2023, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $15 million ($12 million on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, as of July 29, 2023, a total estimated loss of $1 million is recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company 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 the Company’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 the Company and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While the Company’s aggregate indemnification obligations could result in a material liability, the Company 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 minimis.

In connection with Supervalu’s sale of New Albertson’s, Inc. (“NAI”) on March 21, 2013, the Company 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 Supervalu’s subsidiary. Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie the Company’s commitments, the Company 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 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 the Company remains contingently liable, the Company believes that 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 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 the Company. The Company also entered into a Services Agreement with Moran Foods (the “Services Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company provided Save-A-Lot with various technical, human resources, finance and other operational services. The Company primarily ceased providing services under the Services Agreement in fiscal 2022. 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 the Company’s aggregate indemnification obligations to Save-A-Lot and Onex, the purchaser of Save-A-Lot, could result in a material liability, the Company is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. The Company has recorded the de minimis fair value of the guarantee in the Consolidated Balance Sheets within Other long-term liabilities.

Other Contractual Commitments

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale, and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology systems. These contracts typically include either volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of July 29, 2023, the Company had approximately $685 million of non-cancelable future purchase obligations, most of which will be paid and utilized in the ordinary course within one year.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named in various lawsuits alleging that drug manufacturers, retailers and distributors contributed to the national opioid epidemic. Currently, UNFI, primarily through its subsidiary, Advantage Logistics, is named in approximately 43 suits pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio where thousands of cases have been consolidated as Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”). In accordance with the Stock Purchase Agreement dated January 10, 2013, between New Albertson’s Inc. (“New Albertson’s”) and the Company (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”), New Albertson’s is defending and indemnifying UNFI in a majority of the cases under a reservation of rights as those cases relate to New Albertson’s pharmacies. In one of the MDL cases, MDL No. 2804 filed by The Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, all defendants were ordered to Answer the Complaint, which UNFI did on July 26, 2019. To date, no discovery has been conducted against UNFI in any of the actions. On October 7, 2022, the MDL Court issued an order directing the Company and numerous other “non-litigating” defendants to submit by November 1, 2022, a list of opioid cases where the Company is named and opioid dispensing and distribution data. The Company produced the data in compliance with the order. On March 8, 2023, the Company received a subpoena from the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office seeking records related to the distribution and dispensing of opioids. The Company is in the process of gathering responsive documents and responding to the subpoena. The Company believes these claims are without merit and is vigorously defending this matter.

On January 21, 2021, various health plans filed a complaint in Minnesota state court against the Company, Albertson’s Companies, LLC (“Albertson’s”) and Safeway, Inc. alleging the defendants committed fraud by improperly reporting inflated prices for prescription drugs for members of health plans. The Plaintiffs assert six causes of action against the defendants: common law fraud, fraudulent nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and violation of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. The plaintiffs allege that between 2006 and 2016, Supervalu overcharged the health plans by not providing the health plans, as part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers purchasing prescription medication who requested that Supervalu match competitor prices. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. Similar to the above case, for the majority of the relevant period Supervalu and Albertson’s operated as a combined company. In March 2013, Supervalu divested Albertson’s and pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement, Albertson’s is responsible for any claims regarding its pharmacies. On February 19, 2021, Albertson’s and Safeway removed the case to Minnesota Federal District Court and on March 22, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand to state court. On February 26, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The hearing on the remand motion and motions to dismiss occurred on May 20, 2021. On September 21, 2021, the Federal District Court remanded the case to Minnesota state court and did not rule on the motion to dismiss, which was refiled in state court. On February 1, 2022, the state court denied the motion to dismiss. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter.

UNFI is currently subject to a qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA"). In United States ex rel. Schutte and Yarberry v. Supervalu, New Albertson's, Inc., et al, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the relators allege that defendants overcharged government healthcare programs by not providing the government, as a part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers purchasing prescription medication who requested that defendants match competitor prices. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on November 30, 2015. The government previously investigated the relators' allegations and declined to intervene. Violations of the FCA are subject to treble damages and penalties of up to a specified dollar amount per false claim. Relators elected to pursue the case on their own and have alleged FCA damages against Supervalu and New Albertson’s in excess of $100 million, not including trebling and statutory penalties. For the majority of the relevant period Supervalu and New Albertson’s operated as a combined company. In March 2013, Supervalu divested New Albertson’s (and related assets) pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement. Based on the claims that are currently pending and the Stock Purchase Agreement, Supervalu’s share of a potential award (at the currently claimed value by relators) would be approximately $24 million, not including trebling and statutory penalties. Both sides moved for summary judgment. On August 5, 2019, the Court granted one of the relators’ summary judgment motions finding that the defendants’ lower matched prices are the usual and customary prices and that Medicare Part D and Medicaid were entitled to those prices. On July 2, 2020, the Court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and denied the relators’ motion, dismissing the case. On July 9, 2020, the relators filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal. On August 12, 2021, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor. On September 23, 2021, the relators filed a petition for rehearing. On December 3, 2021, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing. On April 1, 2022, the relators filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which was granted on January 13, 2023. Oral argument took place in the Supreme Court on April 18, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed and vacated the lower court’s judgement and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit for further proceedings. On July 27, 2023, the Seventh Circuit vacated the summary judgement order and remanded to the District Court. On August 22, 2023, the District Court set the trial date for April 29, 2024, and indicated it would allow further summary judgement motions, which the Company anticipates filing.

From time to time, the Company receives notice of claims or potential claims or becomes involved in litigation, alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration, or other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business, including investigations and claims regarding employment law, including wage and hour (including class actions); pension plans; labor union disputes, including unfair labor practices, such as claims for back-pay in the context of labor contract negotiations and other matters; supplier, customer and service provider contract terms and claims, including matters related to supplier or customer insolvency or general inability to pay obligations as they become due; product liability claims, including those where the supplier may be insolvent and customers or consumers are seeking recovery against the Company; real estate and environmental matters, including claims in connection with its ownership and lease of a substantial amount of real property, both retail and warehouse properties; and antitrust. Other than as described above, there are no pending material legal proceedings to which the Company is a party or to which its property is subject.

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. Management regularly monitors the Company’s exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change its predictions with respect to outcomes and estimates with respect to related costs and exposures. As of July 29, 2023, no material accrued obligations, individually or in the aggregate, have been recorded for these legal proceedings.

Although management believes it has made appropriate assessments of potential and contingent loss in each of these cases based on current facts and circumstances, and application of prevailing legal principles, there can be no assurance that material differences in actual outcomes from management’s current assessments, costs and exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such predictions or estimates will not occur. The occurrence of any of the foregoing, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.