Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2013
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	16. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies As previously disclosed, eight putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger Transactions were filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of OfficeMax stockholders. Six lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of DuPage County, Illinois (the “State Court”): (i) Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000188), filed on February 25, 2013; (ii) Beth Koeneke v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH000776), filed on February 28, 2013; (iii) Marc Schmidt v. Saligram, et al. (Case Number 2013MR000411), filed on March 13, 2013; (iv) The Feivel & Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000246), filed on March 14, 2013; (v) Norman Klumpp v. Bryant, et al. (Case Number 2013CH1107), filed on March 28, 2013; and (vi) J. David Lewis v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH001123), filed on March 29, 2013. The above-referenced actions have been consolidated in Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000188) (the “State Action”). A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the State Action on April 25, 2013. Two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: (i) Eric Hollander v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-03330), filed on May 2, 2013; and (ii) Thomas and Beverly DeFabio v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-03385), filed on May 6, 2013 (the “Federal Actions”). The State Action and the Federal Actions named OfficeMax, Office Depot and the directors of OfficeMax, among others, as defendants. Each of the lawsuits was brought by a purported holder or holders of OfficeMax common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of OfficeMax stockholders. The lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that the directors of OfficeMax breached their fiduciary duties to OfficeMax stockholders by agreeing to a transaction with inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process. The lawsuits further allege that OfficeMax and Office Depot, among others, aided and abetted the OfficeMax directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. In addition, the lawsuits alleged that the disclosure in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus of OfficeMax and Office Depot filed with the SEC on June 10, 2013 was inadequate. OfficeMax believes that these lawsuits are without merit and that no further disclosure was required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on June 25, 2013, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “Memorandum of Understanding”) regarding the settlement of the State Action and the Federal Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties’ agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the State Action and the Federal Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to the State Action and the Federal Actions agreed that OfficeMax and Office Depot would make certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus, which OfficeMax made in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 27, 2013. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the State Court for approval at the earliest practicable time. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the State Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. The stipulation of settlement will provide that OfficeMax (or its successors in interest) will pay, on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses, subject to approval by the State Court, in the amount of $0.7 million, following dismissal of both the State Action and the Federal Actions with prejudice. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the State Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, or if the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect.

16. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

As previously disclosed, eight putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger Transactions were filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of OfficeMax stockholders.

Six lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of DuPage County, Illinois (the “State Court”): (i) Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000188), filed on February 25, 2013; (ii) Beth Koeneke v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH000776), filed on February 28, 2013; (iii) Marc Schmidt v. Saligram, et al. (Case Number 2013MR000411), filed on March 13, 2013; (iv) The Feivel & Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000246), filed on March 14, 2013; (v) Norman Klumpp v. Bryant, et al. (Case Number 2013CH1107), filed on March 28, 2013; and (vi) J. David Lewis v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH001123), filed on March 29, 2013. The above-referenced actions have been consolidated in Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000188) (the “State Action”). A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the State Action on April 25, 2013.

Two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: (i) Eric Hollander v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-03330), filed on May 2, 2013; and (ii) Thomas and Beverly DeFabio v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-03385), filed on May 6, 2013 (the “Federal Actions”).

The State Action and the Federal Actions named OfficeMax, Office Depot and the directors of OfficeMax, among others, as defendants. Each of the lawsuits was brought by a purported holder or holders of OfficeMax common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of OfficeMax stockholders. The lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that the directors of OfficeMax breached their fiduciary duties to OfficeMax stockholders by agreeing to a transaction with inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process. The lawsuits further allege that OfficeMax and Office Depot, among others, aided and abetted the OfficeMax directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. In addition, the lawsuits alleged that the disclosure in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus of OfficeMax and Office Depot filed with the SEC on June 10, 2013 was inadequate.

OfficeMax believes that these lawsuits are without merit and that no further disclosure was required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on June 25, 2013, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “Memorandum of Understanding”) regarding the settlement of the State Action and the Federal Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties’ agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the State Action and the Federal Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to the State Action and the Federal Actions agreed that OfficeMax and Office Depot would make certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus, which OfficeMax made in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 27, 2013. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the State Court for approval at the earliest practicable time. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the State Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. The stipulation of settlement will provide that OfficeMax (or its successors in interest) will pay, on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses, subject to approval by the State Court, in the amount of $0.7 million, following dismissal of both the State Action and the Federal Actions with prejudice. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the State Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, or if the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect.