CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Aug. 26, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Litigation Matters We are a party to certain litigation matters relating to our acquisition of Beatrice Company ("Beatrice") in fiscal 1991, including litigation proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of the company. These proceedings include suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("ConAgra Grocery Products") as alleged successor to W. P. Fuller & Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by a predecessor to Beatrice from 1962 until 1967. These lawsuits generally seek damages for personal injury, property damage, economic loss, and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paint, and/or injunctive relief for inspection and abatement. Although decisions favorable to us have been rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, we remain a defendant in active suits in Illinois and California. ConAgra Grocery Products has denied liability in both suits, both on the merits of the claims and on the basis that we do not believe it to be the successor to any liability attributable to W. P. Fuller & Co. The California suit is discussed in the following paragraph. The Illinois suit seeks class-wide relief for reimbursement of costs associated with the testing of lead levels in blood. We do not believe it is probable that we have incurred any liability with respect to the Illinois case, nor is it possible to estimate any potential exposure. In California, a number of cities and counties joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of an alleged public nuisance in the form of lead-based paint potentially present on the interior of residences, regardless of its condition. On September 23, 2013, a trial of the California case concluded in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, and on January 27, 2014, the court entered a judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants ordering the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company appealed the Judgment, and on November 14, 2017 the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed in part, holding that the defendants were not liable to pay for abatement of homes built after 1950, but affirmed the Judgment as to homes built before 1951. The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court with directions to recalculate the amount of the abatement fund estimated to be necessary to cover the cost of remediating pre-1951 homes, and to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding appointment of a suitable receiver. ConAgra Grocery Products and the other defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the decision, which we believe to be an unprecedented expansion of current California law. On February 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition and declined to review the merits of the case, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. ConAgra Grocery Products and the other defendants have sought further review of certain issues from the Supreme Court of the United States, although further appeal is discretionary and may not be granted. Further proceedings in the trial court may not be stayed pending the outcome of any further appeal. In light of the decision rendered by the California Appellate Court on November 14, 2017, and the California Supreme Court's decision on February 14, 2018 not to review the Appellate Court's decision, we have concluded that the liability has likely become probable as contemplated by Accounting Standards Codification Topic 450. On September 4, 2018, the trial court recalculated its estimate of the amount needed to remediate pre-1951 homes in the plaintiff jurisdictions to be $409.0 million. However, uncertainties remain which make it difficult to estimate the ultimate potential liability, including (i) although liability is joint and several, it is unknown what amount each defendant may ultimately be required to pay or how allocation among the defendants (and other potentially responsible parties such as property owners who may have violated the applicable housing codes) will be determined; (ii) according to the trial court's original order, participation in the abatement program by eligible homeowners is voluntary and it is unknown what percentage of eligible homeowners will choose to participate or how such claims will be administered; (iii) the trial court's original order required that any amounts paid by the defendants into the fund that were not spent within four years would be returned to the defendants, and it is unknown whether this feature of the fund will be retained or, if it is retained, how much will be spent during that time period; and (iv) defendants will have a new right to appeal any new aspects of the judgment entered by the trial court upon remand, although it is unknown whether the court would stay execution of any new judgment while a subsequent appeal is pending. While the ultimate amount of any loss and timing of payments related thereto remain uncertain and could change as further information is obtained, we have accrued $136.0 million, within other accrued liabilities, for this matter as of August 26, 2018. The extent of insurance coverage is uncertain and the Company's carriers are on notice; however, any possible insurance recovery has not been considered for purposes of determining our liability. We cannot assure that the final resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. In June 2009, an accidental explosion occurred at our manufacturing facility in Garner, North Carolina. This facility was the primary production facility for our Slim Jim^® branded meat snacks. In June 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced its determination that the explosion was the result of an accidental natural gas release and not a deliberate act. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, we settled our property and business interruption claims related to the Garner accident with our insurance providers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. ("Jacobs"), our engineer and project manager at the site, filed a declaratory judgment action against us seeking indemnity for personal injury claims brought against it as a result of the accident. During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, our motion for summary judgment was granted and the suit was dismissed without prejudice on the basis that the suit was filed prematurely. In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, Jacobs refiled its action seeking indemnity. On March 25, 2016, a Douglas County jury in Nebraska rendered a verdict in favor of Jacobs and against us in the amount of $108.9 million plus post-judgment interest. We filed our Notice of Appeal in September 2016, and the appeal was heard by the Nebraska Supreme Court in November 2017. On September 14, 2018, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict and the rulings of the trial court. Although our insurance carriers have provided customary notices of reservation of their rights under the policies of insurance, we expect the exposure in this case to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible. We are party to a number of putative class action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson^® oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business. We are party to matters challenging the Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of putative class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business. Litigation Related to the Merger We are involved in certain litigation matters in connection with our planned acquisition of Pinnacle (see Note 2). On August 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Alexander Rasmussen v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501. On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Robert H. Paquette v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578. On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Wesley Lindquist v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610. The Rasmussen Action, the Paquette Action, and the Lindquist Action allege that Pinnacle's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on July 25, 2018, omits material information with respect to the merger, rendering it false and misleading and thus that Pinnacle and the directors of Pinnacle violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act. The Rasmussen Action, the Paquette Action, and the Lindquist Action further allege that the directors of Pinnacle violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Rasmussen Action and the Paquette Action seek, among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement unless Pinnacle discloses the allegedly material information that was allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Lindquist Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement unless Pinnacle discloses the allegedly material information that was allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, an award of rescissory damages should the merger be consummated, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On August 15, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2018-0605. The Rosenblatt Action alleges that the directors of Pinnacle breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by filing a preliminary proxy statement that contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The Rosenblatt Action further alleges that Pinnacle, Conagra, and Patriot Merger Sub Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conagra ("Merger Sub"), aided and abetted the directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Rosenblatt Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of the merger or an award of rescissory damages should the merger be consummated, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Conagra and Merger Sub believe the Rosenblatt Action is without merit and intend to vigorously defend it. Environmental Matters We are a party to certain environmental proceedings relating to our acquisition of Beatrice in fiscal 1991. Such proceedings include proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of Beatrice. The current environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's possible status as a potentially responsible party at approximately 40 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent sites (the "Beatrice sites"). These sites involve locations previously owned or operated by predecessors of Beatrice that used or produced petroleum, pesticides, fertilizers, dyes, inks, solvents, PCBs, acids, lead, sulfur, tannery wastes, and/or other contaminants. Reserves for these Beatrice environmental proceedings have been established based on our best estimate of the undiscounted remediation liabilities, which estimates include evaluation of investigatory studies, extent of required clean-up, the known volumetric contribution of Beatrice and other potentially responsible parties, and its experience in remediating sites. The accrual for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $53.6 million as of August 26, 2018, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was submitted for the Southwest Properties portion of the Wells G&H Superfund site, which is one of the Beatrice sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") issued a Record of Decision (the "ROD") for the Southwest Properties portion of the site on September 29, 2017, and has entered into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to determine final responsibility for implementing the ROD. Guarantees and Other Contingencies In certain limited situations, we guarantee obligations of the Lamb Weston business pursuant to guarantee arrangements that existed prior to the Spinoff and remained in place following completion of the Spinoff until such guarantee obligations are substituted for guarantees issued by Lamb Weston. Such guarantee arrangements are described below. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of November 8, 2016 (the "Separation Agreement"), between us and Lamb Weston, these guarantee arrangements are deemed liabilities of Lamb Weston that were transferred to Lamb Weston as part of the Spinoff. Accordingly, in the event that we are required to make any payments as a result of these guarantee arrangements, Lamb Weston is obligated to indemnify us for any such liability, reduced by any insurance proceeds received by us, in accordance with the terms of the indemnification provisions under the Separation Agreement. Lamb Weston is a party to a warehouse services agreement with a third-party warehouse provider through July 2035. Under this agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make payments for warehouse services based on the quantity of goods stored and other service factors. We have guaranteed the warehouse provider that we will make the payments required under the agreement in the event that Lamb Weston fails to perform. Minimum payments of $1.5 million per month are required under this agreement. It is not possible to determine the maximum amount of the payment obligations under this agreement. Upon completion of the Spinoff, we recognized a liability for the estimated fair value of this guarantee. As of August 26, 2018, the amount of this guarantee, recorded in other noncurrent liabilities, was $27.7 million. Lamb Weston is a party to an agricultural sublease agreement with a third party for certain farmland through 2020 (subject, at Lamb Weston's option, to extension for two additional five-year periods). Under the terms of the sublease agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make certain rental payments to the sublessor. We have guaranteed the sublessor Lamb Weston's performance and the payment of all amounts (including indemnification obligations) owed by Lamb Weston under the sublease agreement, up to a maximum of $75.0 million. We believe the farmland associated with this sublease agreement is readily marketable for lease to other area farming operators. As such, we believe that any financial exposure to the company, in the event that we were required to perform under the guaranty, would be largely mitigated. We lease a certain office building from an entity that we have determined to be a variable interest entity. The lease agreement with this entity includes a fixed-price purchase option for the asset being leased. The lease agreement also contains a contingent put option (the "lease put option") that allows the lessor to require us to purchase the building at the greater of original construction cost, or fair market value, without a lease agreement in place (the "put price") in certain limited circumstances. As a result of substantial impairment charges related to our divested Private Brands operations, this lease put option became exercisable. We are amortizing the difference between the put price and the estimated fair value (without a lease agreement in place) of the property over the remaining lease term within SG&A expenses. As of August 26, 2018 and May 27, 2018, the estimated amount by which the put option price exceeded the estimated fair value of the property was $8.2 million, of which we had accrued $1.3 million and $1.2 million, respectively. This lease is accounted for as an operating lease, and accordingly, there are no material assets and liabilities, other than the accrued portion of the put price, associated with this entity included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We have determined that we do not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of this entity. In making this determination, we have considered, among other items, the terms of the lease agreement, the expected remaining useful life of the asset leased, and the capital structure of the lessor entity. General After taking into account liabilities recognized for all of the foregoing matters, management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity; however, it is reasonably possible that a change of the estimates of any of the foregoing matters may occur in the future and, as noted, the lead paint matter could result in a material final judgment which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.

CONTINGENCIES

Litigation Matters

We are a party to certain litigation matters relating to our acquisition of Beatrice Company ("Beatrice") in fiscal 1991, including litigation proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of the company. These proceedings include suits against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("ConAgra Grocery Products") as alleged successor to W. P. Fuller & Co., a lead paint and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by a predecessor to Beatrice from 1962 until 1967. These lawsuits generally seek damages for personal injury, property damage, economic loss, and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paint, and/or injunctive relief for inspection and abatement. Although decisions favorable to us have been rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, we remain a defendant in active suits in Illinois and California. ConAgra Grocery Products has denied liability in both suits, both on the merits of the claims and on the basis that we do not believe it to be the successor to any liability attributable to W. P. Fuller & Co. The California suit is discussed in the following paragraph. The Illinois suit seeks class-wide relief for reimbursement of costs associated with the testing of lead levels in blood. We do not believe it is probable that we have incurred any liability with respect to the Illinois case, nor is it possible to estimate any potential exposure.

In California, a number of cities and counties joined in a consolidated action seeking abatement of an alleged public nuisance in the form of lead-based paint potentially present on the interior of residences, regardless of its condition. On September 23, 2013, a trial of the California case concluded in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, and on January 27, 2014, the court entered a judgment (the "Judgment") against ConAgra Grocery Products and two other defendants ordering the creation of a California abatement fund in the amount of $1.15 billion. Liability is joint and several. The Company appealed the Judgment, and on November 14, 2017 the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed in part, holding that the defendants were not liable to pay for abatement of homes built after 1950, but affirmed the Judgment as to homes built before 1951. The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court with directions to recalculate the amount of the abatement fund estimated to be necessary to cover the cost of remediating pre-1951 homes, and to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding appointment of a suitable receiver. ConAgra Grocery Products and the other defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the decision, which we believe to be an unprecedented expansion of current California law. On February 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition and declined to review the merits of the case, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. ConAgra Grocery Products and the other defendants have sought further review of certain issues from the Supreme Court of the United States, although further appeal is discretionary and may not be granted. Further proceedings in the trial court may not be stayed pending the outcome of any further appeal. In light of the decision rendered by the California Appellate Court on November 14, 2017, and the California Supreme Court's decision on February 14, 2018 not to review the Appellate Court's decision, we have concluded that the liability has likely become probable as contemplated by Accounting Standards Codification Topic 450. On September 4, 2018, the trial court recalculated its estimate of the amount needed to remediate pre-1951 homes in the plaintiff jurisdictions to be $409.0 million. However, uncertainties remain which make it difficult to estimate the ultimate potential liability, including (i) although liability is joint and several, it is unknown what amount each defendant may ultimately be required to pay or how allocation among the defendants (and other potentially responsible parties such as property owners who may have violated the applicable housing codes) will be determined; (ii) according to the trial court's original order, participation in the abatement program by eligible homeowners is voluntary and it is unknown what percentage of eligible homeowners will choose to participate or how such claims will be administered; (iii) the trial court's original order required that any amounts paid by the defendants into the fund that were not spent within four years would be returned to the defendants, and it is unknown whether this feature of the fund will be retained or, if it is retained, how much will be spent during that time period; and (iv) defendants will have a new right to appeal any new aspects of the judgment entered by the trial court upon remand, although it is unknown whether the court would stay execution of any new judgment while a subsequent appeal is pending.

While the ultimate amount of any loss and timing of payments related thereto remain uncertain and could change as further information is obtained, we have accrued $136.0 million, within other accrued liabilities, for this matter as of August 26, 2018. The extent of insurance coverage is uncertain and the Company's carriers are on notice; however, any possible insurance recovery has not been considered for purposes of determining our liability. We cannot assure that the final resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

In June 2009, an accidental explosion occurred at our manufacturing facility in Garner, North Carolina. This facility was the primary production facility for our Slim Jim^® branded meat snacks. In June 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced its determination that the explosion was the result of an accidental natural gas release and not a deliberate act. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, we settled our property and business interruption claims related to the Garner accident with our insurance providers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. ("Jacobs"), our engineer and project manager at the site, filed a declaratory judgment action against us seeking indemnity for personal injury claims brought against it as a result of the accident. During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, our motion for summary judgment was granted and the suit was dismissed without prejudice on the basis that the suit was filed prematurely. In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, Jacobs refiled its action seeking indemnity. On March 25, 2016, a Douglas County jury in Nebraska rendered a verdict in favor of Jacobs and against us in the amount of $108.9 million plus post-judgment interest. We filed our Notice of Appeal in September 2016, and the appeal was heard by the Nebraska Supreme Court in November 2017. On September 14, 2018, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict and the rulings of the trial court. Although our insurance carriers have provided customary notices of reservation of their rights under the policies of insurance, we expect the exposure in this case to be limited to the applicable insurance deductible.

We are party to a number of putative class action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson^® oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business.

We are party to matters challenging the Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of putative class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business.

Litigation Related to the Merger

We are involved in certain litigation matters in connection with our planned acquisition of Pinnacle (see Note 2). On August 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Alexander Rasmussen v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501. On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Robert H. Paquette v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578. On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Wesley Lindquist v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610. The Rasmussen Action, the Paquette Action, and the Lindquist Action allege that Pinnacle's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on July 25, 2018, omits material information with respect to the merger, rendering it false and misleading and thus that Pinnacle and the directors of Pinnacle violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act. The Rasmussen Action, the Paquette Action, and the Lindquist Action further allege that the directors of Pinnacle violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Rasmussen Action and the Paquette Action seek, among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement unless Pinnacle discloses the allegedly material information that was allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Lindquist Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement unless Pinnacle discloses the allegedly material information that was allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, an award of rescissory damages should the merger be consummated, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On August 15, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2018-0605. The Rosenblatt Action alleges that the directors of Pinnacle breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by filing a preliminary proxy statement that contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The Rosenblatt Action further alleges that Pinnacle, Conagra, and Patriot Merger Sub Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conagra ("Merger Sub"), aided and abetted the directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Rosenblatt Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of the merger or an award of rescissory damages should the merger be consummated, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Conagra and Merger Sub believe the Rosenblatt Action is without merit and intend to vigorously defend it.

Environmental Matters

We are a party to certain environmental proceedings relating to our acquisition of Beatrice in fiscal 1991. Such proceedings include proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to our acquisition of Beatrice. The current environmental proceedings associated with Beatrice include litigation and administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's possible status as a potentially responsible party at approximately 40 Superfund, proposed Superfund, or state-equivalent sites (the "Beatrice sites"). These sites involve locations previously owned or operated by predecessors of Beatrice that used or produced petroleum, pesticides, fertilizers, dyes, inks, solvents, PCBs, acids, lead, sulfur, tannery wastes, and/or other contaminants. Reserves for these Beatrice environmental proceedings have been established based on our best estimate of the undiscounted remediation liabilities, which estimates include evaluation of investigatory studies, extent of required clean-up, the known volumetric contribution of Beatrice and other potentially responsible parties, and its experience in remediating sites. The accrual for Beatrice-related environmental matters totaled $53.6 million as of August 26, 2018, a majority of which relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites referenced above. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was submitted for the Southwest Properties portion of the Wells G&H Superfund site, which is one of the Beatrice sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") issued a Record of Decision (the "ROD") for the Southwest Properties portion of the site on September 29, 2017, and has entered into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to determine final responsibility for implementing the ROD.

Guarantees and Other Contingencies

In certain limited situations, we guarantee obligations of the Lamb Weston business pursuant to guarantee arrangements that existed prior to the Spinoff and remained in place following completion of the Spinoff until such guarantee obligations are substituted for guarantees issued by Lamb Weston. Such guarantee arrangements are described below. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of November 8, 2016 (the "Separation Agreement"), between us and Lamb Weston, these guarantee arrangements are deemed liabilities of Lamb Weston that were transferred to Lamb Weston as part of the Spinoff. Accordingly, in the event that we are required to make any payments as a result of these guarantee arrangements, Lamb Weston is obligated to indemnify us for any such liability, reduced by any insurance proceeds received by us, in accordance with the terms of the indemnification provisions under the Separation Agreement.

Lamb Weston is a party to a warehouse services agreement with a third-party warehouse provider through July 2035. Under this agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make payments for warehouse services based on the quantity of goods stored and other service factors. We have guaranteed the warehouse provider that we will make the payments required under the agreement in the event that Lamb Weston fails to perform. Minimum payments of $1.5 million per month are required under this agreement. It is not possible to determine the maximum amount of the payment obligations under this agreement. Upon completion of the Spinoff, we recognized a liability for the estimated fair value of this guarantee. As of August 26, 2018, the amount of this guarantee, recorded in other noncurrent liabilities, was $27.7 million.

Lamb Weston is a party to an agricultural sublease agreement with a third party for certain farmland through 2020 (subject, at Lamb Weston's option, to extension for two additional five-year periods). Under the terms of the sublease agreement, Lamb Weston is required to make certain rental payments to the sublessor. We have guaranteed the sublessor Lamb Weston's performance and the payment of all amounts (including indemnification obligations) owed by Lamb Weston under the sublease agreement, up to a maximum of $75.0 million. We believe the farmland associated with this sublease agreement is readily marketable for lease to other area farming operators. As such, we believe that any financial exposure to the company, in the event that we were required to perform under the guaranty, would be largely mitigated.

We lease a certain office building from an entity that we have determined to be a variable interest entity. The lease agreement with this entity includes a fixed-price purchase option for the asset being leased. The lease agreement also contains a contingent put option (the "lease put option") that allows the lessor to require us to purchase the building at the greater of original construction cost, or fair market value, without a lease agreement in place (the "put price") in certain limited circumstances. As a result of substantial impairment charges related to our divested Private Brands operations, this lease put option became exercisable. We are amortizing the difference between the put price and the estimated fair value (without a lease agreement in place) of the property over the remaining lease term within SG&A expenses. As of August 26, 2018 and May 27, 2018, the estimated amount by which the put option price exceeded the estimated fair value of the property was $8.2 million, of which we had accrued $1.3 million and $1.2 million, respectively. This lease is accounted for as an operating lease, and accordingly, there are no material assets and liabilities, other than the accrued portion of the put price, associated with this entity included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We have determined that we do not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of this entity. In making this determination, we have considered, among other items, the terms of the lease agreement, the expected remaining useful life of the asset leased, and the capital structure of the lessor entity.

General

After taking into account liabilities recognized for all of the foregoing matters, management believes the ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity; however, it is reasonably possible that a change of the estimates of any of the foregoing matters may occur in the future and, as noted, the lead paint matter could result in a material final judgment which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Costs of legal services associated with the foregoing matters are recognized in earnings as services are provided.