Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 03, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	22. Commitments and Contingencies Amended and Restated Securities and Purchase Agreements On November 3, 2011, our Company entered Amended and Restated SPAs to infuse our Company with $490.0 million new debt and equity investments from private investors comprised of (a) certain holders of our Company's prepetition 5.125% unsecured convertible notes due in 2011, 6.75% unsecured convertible notes due in 2012 and 9.375% senior quarterly interest bonds due August 1, 2039 and (b) certain affiliates of The Yucaipa Companies LLC, holders of our Company's "Series A-Y" convertible preferred stock and "Series A-T" convertible preferred. On December 6, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court authorized our Company to execute and deliver to the Investors the Amended and Restated SPAs. The Amended and Restated SPAs serve as the foundation to allow our Company to complete the restructuring of our balance sheet and emerge successfully from chapter 11 as a private entity in early 2012. Pursuant to the Amended and Restated SPAs, the Investors are providing a total new money cash investment of $490.0 million in the form of (i) new privately placed $210.0 million face value second lien notes due November 2017, to be purchased by the Investors at an aggregate purchase price equal to 95% of the face value, (ii) new privately placed $210.0 million face value convertible third lien notes due 2018, to be purchased by the Investors at the face value and (iii) a new privately placed $80.0 million investment in an aggregate of 800,000 shares of our Company's new common stock. Upon the Closing Date, our Company's existing debtor-in-possession financing facility is required to be refinanced with a similar facility that will be raised on market terms that are in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Investors. The proceeds of the Exit Facility and the New Money Commitment, combined with our Company's then existing cash on hand will provide the funding for the reorganization, including paying certain secured creditors in full in cash, and will provide a cash pool of $40.0 million, less the amount distributed pursuant to a substantive consolidation settlement cash pool, for distributions to general unsecured creditors. The Closing contemplated thereunder is subject to the fulfillment of the conditions precedent set forth in the Amended and Restated SPAs refer to Note 1 – Basis of Presentation for additional information. Modified Collective Bargaining Agreements Subsequent to our balance sheet date, on December 5, 2011, our Company obtained approval from the Bankruptcy Court to enter into Modified CBAs with the United Food and Commercial Workers, International and 13 Local UFCW Affiliates in support of our Company's restructuring initiatives. The Modified CBAs will be in effect for a period of five years beginning on January 1, 2012. The Modified CBA enables our Company to materially reduce the cost associated with our unionized workforce and ensure labor cost stability. It will also permit our Company to survive in the competitive grocery business while still permitting our Company to retain and attract high-quality associates. Our Company expects it will realize a minimum aggregate labor savings of an agreed upon amount (excluding employee buy-out savings) over the term of the Modified CBAs. Supply Agreement On June 2, 2011, our Company entered into a definitive supply agreement with C&S effective May 29, 2011, whereby C&S will provide Services in support of a substantial portion of our Company's supply chain. This agreement replaced the warehousing, logistics, procurement and purchasing agreement under which the parties had been operating since 2008. The term of the agreement is through the effective date of our Company's Plan of Reorganization in its Bankruptcy Filing but may be extended by either party for a term concurrent with a fixed volume commitment based upon wholesale purchases of merchandise resulting in a term of approximately seven years. The cost structure of the agreement is a combination of a fixed cost and variable upcharge pricing model. The charges are subject to adjustment due to volume change or other material changes to the operating assumptions of the agreement. Our Company expects it will realize a run-rate of more than $50 million in annual savings commencing with our Company's emergence from the Bankruptcy Filing pursuant to a Plan of Reorganization. The agreement provides our Company with important service enhancements, including detailed service specifications and key performance measures. The agreement also permits our Company to maintain product standards and specifications for all merchandise purchased for resale in our Company's stores. Lease Assignment On August 14, 2007, Pathmark entered into a leasehold assignment contract for the sale of its leasehold interests in one of its stores to CPS Operating Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("CPS"). Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Pathmark was to receive $87.0 million for assigning and transferring to CPS all of Pathmark's interest in the lease and CPS was to have assumed all of the duties and obligations of Pathmark under the lease. CPS deposited $6.0 million in escrow as a deposit against the purchase price for the lease, which is non-refundable to CPS, except as otherwise expressly provided in the agreement. The assignment of the lease was scheduled to close on December 28, 2007. On December 27, 2007, CPS issued a notice terminating the agreement for reason of a purported breach of the agreement, which, if proven, would require the return of the escrow. We are disputing the validity of CPS's notice of termination as we believe CPS's position is without merit. Because we are challenging the validity of CPS's December 27, 2007 notice of termination, we issued our own notice to CPS on December 31, 2007, asserting CPS's breach of the agreement as a result of their failure to close on December 28, 2007. CPS's breach, if proven, would entitle us to keep the escrow. Both parties have taken legal action in New York state court to obtain the $6.0 million deposit held in escrow. In May 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing Pathmark and CPS to proceed with their New York state litigation notwithstanding the automatic stay. Rejection of GHI Trucking Agreement On February 4, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing Pathmark to reject a burdensome trucking agreement with GHI and enter into an interim replacement trucking arrangement with C&S. Because Pathmark was GHI's largest customer, its rejection of the trucking agreement negatively impacted GHI's business, prompting GHI to layoff a significant number of its employees. The local union representing GHI's employees subsequently brought suit against GHI in New Jersey federal court alleging that GHI's termination of its employees violated New Jersey state and federal WARN statutes and constituted a breach of GHI's collective bargaining agreement with the union. On March 31, 2011, GHI filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking leave to file a third party complaint in the New Jersey action seeking in excess of $100 million in damages against our Company alleging, among other things, that our conduct in connection with rejecting the trucking agreement was tortious and that we were responsible for any WARN Act liability of GHI to its former employees. The Bankruptcy Court denied GHI's motion, and GHI appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision to the district court, which appeal is pending. LaMarca et al v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc ("Defendants") On June 24, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., d/b/a A&P, The Food Emporium, and Waldbaum's alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law. Three named plaintiffs, Benedetto LaMarca, Dolores Guiddy, and Stephen Tedesco, alleged on behalf of a class that our Company failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly employees who were either required or permitted to work more than 40 hours per week. This matter has been stayed by our Bankruptcy Filing and is a claim that is subject to compromise. Dudley v. Haub, Claus, Galgano et al. United States District Court – District of New Jersey This matter is a securities class action lawsuit that alleges on behalf of purchasers of our Company's securities during the period between July 23, 2009 and December 10, 2010, that certain of our Company's former and current executives violated the securities laws by making fraudulent or misleading statements with respect to material adverse facts about our Company's financial condition, business and prospects. Our Company is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit. However, our Company's current CEO and two members of the Board of Directors are individually named defendants. Our Company views this lawsuit as lacking merit, as the statements and disclosures forming the basis for the allegations are forward-looking statements subject to "safe harbor" protections, or are otherwise not actionable. Other We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business. We are also subject to certain environmental claims. While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty, Management does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters will have a material adverse effect in our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

22. Commitments and Contingencies

Amended and Restated Securities and Purchase Agreements

On November 3, 2011, our Company entered Amended and Restated SPAs to infuse our Company with $490.0 million new debt and equity investments from private investors comprised of (a) certain holders of our Company's prepetition 5.125% unsecured convertible notes due in 2011, 6.75% unsecured convertible notes due in 2012 and 9.375% senior quarterly interest bonds due August 1, 2039 and (b) certain affiliates of The Yucaipa Companies LLC, holders of our Company's "Series A-Y" convertible preferred stock and "Series A-T" convertible preferred. On December 6, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court authorized our Company to execute and deliver to the Investors the Amended and Restated SPAs. The Amended and Restated SPAs serve as the foundation to allow our Company to complete the restructuring of our balance sheet and emerge successfully from chapter 11 as a private entity in early 2012.

Pursuant to the Amended and Restated SPAs, the Investors are providing a total new money cash investment of $490.0 million in the form of (i) new privately placed $210.0 million face value second lien notes due November 2017, to be purchased by the Investors at an aggregate purchase price equal to 95% of the face value, (ii) new privately placed $210.0 million face value convertible third lien notes due 2018, to be purchased by the Investors at the face value and (iii) a new privately placed $80.0 million investment in an aggregate of 800,000 shares of our Company's new common stock.

Upon the Closing Date, our Company's existing debtor-in-possession financing facility is required to be refinanced with a similar facility that will be raised on market terms that are in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Investors. The proceeds of the Exit Facility and the New Money Commitment, combined with our Company's then existing cash on hand will provide the funding for the reorganization, including paying certain secured creditors in full in cash, and will provide a cash pool of $40.0 million, less the amount distributed pursuant to a substantive consolidation settlement cash pool, for distributions to general unsecured creditors.

The Closing contemplated thereunder is subject to the fulfillment of the conditions precedent set forth in the Amended and Restated SPAs refer to Note 1 – Basis of Presentation for additional information.

Modified Collective Bargaining Agreements

Subsequent to our balance sheet date, on December 5, 2011, our Company obtained approval from the Bankruptcy Court to enter into Modified CBAs with the United Food and Commercial Workers, International and 13 Local UFCW Affiliates in support of our Company's restructuring initiatives. The Modified CBAs will be in effect for a period of five years beginning on January 1, 2012.

The Modified CBA enables our Company to materially reduce the cost associated with our unionized workforce and ensure labor cost stability. It will also permit our Company to survive in the competitive grocery business while still permitting our Company to retain and attract high-quality associates. Our Company expects it will realize a minimum aggregate labor savings of an agreed upon amount (excluding employee buy-out savings) over the term of the Modified CBAs.

Supply Agreement

On June 2, 2011, our Company entered into a definitive supply agreement with C&S effective May 29, 2011, whereby C&S will provide Services in support of a substantial portion of our Company's supply chain. This agreement replaced the warehousing, logistics, procurement and purchasing agreement under which the parties had been operating since 2008.

The term of the agreement is through the effective date of our Company's Plan of Reorganization in its Bankruptcy Filing but may be extended by either party for a term concurrent with a fixed volume commitment based upon wholesale purchases of merchandise resulting in a term of approximately seven years. The cost structure of the agreement is a combination of a fixed cost and variable upcharge pricing model. The charges are subject to adjustment due to volume change or other material changes to the operating assumptions of the agreement.

Our Company expects it will realize a run-rate of more than $50 million in annual savings commencing with our Company's emergence from the Bankruptcy Filing pursuant to a Plan of Reorganization. The agreement provides our Company with important service enhancements, including detailed service specifications and key performance measures. The agreement also permits our Company to maintain product standards and specifications for all merchandise purchased for resale in our Company's stores.

Lease Assignment

On August 14, 2007, Pathmark entered into a leasehold assignment contract for the sale of its leasehold interests in one of its stores to CPS Operating Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("CPS"). Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Pathmark was to receive $87.0 million for assigning and transferring to CPS all of Pathmark's interest in the lease and CPS was to have assumed all of the duties and obligations of Pathmark under the lease. CPS deposited $6.0 million in escrow as a deposit against the purchase price for the lease, which is non-refundable to CPS, except as otherwise expressly provided in the agreement. The assignment of the lease was scheduled to close on December 28, 2007. On December 27, 2007, CPS issued a notice terminating the agreement for reason of a purported breach of the agreement, which, if proven, would require the return of the escrow. We are disputing the validity of CPS's notice of termination as we believe CPS's position is without merit. Because we are challenging the validity of CPS's December 27, 2007 notice of termination, we issued our own notice to CPS on December 31, 2007, asserting CPS's breach of the agreement as a result of their failure to close on December 28, 2007. CPS's breach, if proven, would entitle us to keep the escrow. Both parties have taken legal action in New York state court to obtain the $6.0 million deposit held in escrow. In May 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing Pathmark and CPS to proceed with their New York state litigation notwithstanding the automatic stay.

Rejection of GHI Trucking Agreement

On February 4, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing Pathmark to reject a burdensome trucking agreement with GHI and enter into an interim replacement trucking arrangement with C&S. Because Pathmark was GHI's largest customer, its rejection of the trucking agreement negatively impacted GHI's business, prompting GHI to layoff a significant number of its employees. The local union representing GHI's employees subsequently brought suit against GHI in New Jersey federal court alleging that GHI's termination of its employees violated New Jersey state and federal WARN statutes and constituted a breach of GHI's collective bargaining agreement with the union. On March 31, 2011, GHI filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking leave to file a third party complaint in the New Jersey action seeking in excess of $100 million in damages against our Company alleging, among other things, that our conduct in connection with rejecting the trucking agreement was tortious and that we were responsible for any WARN Act liability of GHI to its former employees. The Bankruptcy Court denied GHI's motion, and GHI appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision to the district court, which appeal is pending.

LaMarca et al v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc ("Defendants")

On June 24, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., d/b/a A&P, The Food Emporium, and Waldbaum's alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law. Three named plaintiffs, Benedetto LaMarca, Dolores Guiddy, and Stephen Tedesco, alleged on behalf of a class that our Company failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly employees who were either required or permitted to work more than 40 hours per week. This matter has been stayed by our Bankruptcy Filing and is a claim that is subject to compromise.

Dudley v. Haub, Claus, Galgano et al. United States District Court – District of New Jersey

This matter is a securities class action lawsuit that alleges on behalf of purchasers of our Company's securities during the period between July 23, 2009 and December 10, 2010, that certain of our Company's former and current executives violated the securities laws by making fraudulent or misleading statements with respect to material adverse facts about our Company's financial condition, business and prospects. Our Company is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit. However, our Company's current CEO and two members of the Board of Directors are individually named defendants. Our Company views this lawsuit as lacking merit, as the statements and disclosures forming the basis for the allegations are forward-looking statements subject to "safe harbor" protections, or are otherwise not actionable.

Other

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business. We are also subject to certain environmental claims. While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty, Management does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters will have a material adverse effect in our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.