Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 29, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies	Note M – Commitments and Contingencies We are involved in litigation arising in the normal course of our business. While, from time to time, claims are asserted that make demands for a large sum of money (including, from time to time, actions which are asserted to be maintainable as class action suits), we do not believe that contingent liabilities related to these matters (including the matters discussed below), either individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect our financial position, results of our operations or cash flows. On April 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain current and former executive officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking damages, fees, costs and equitable relief. The allegations made in this lawsuit primarily relate to the company’s previous financial disclosures and reports regarding the certain tax losses described below. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned as Climo v. Office Depot, Inc, Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian. The Court granted a request by the Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (“CLPF”) to appoint it as lead plaintiff in the case and the CLPF filed its amended complaint on September 6, 2011. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in November 2011. On May 24, 2012, the Court granted Office Depot’s motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff 20 days to file a second amended complaint, which it did not do. On July 31, 2012, the Court closed the case because of the plaintiff’s failure to file a second amended complaint in a timely manner. On June 17, 2011, a derivative lawsuit was filed against certain current and former executive officers and the company, generally alleging that the officers breached their fiduciary duties. The allegations in this lawsuit primarily relate to the company’s previous financial disclosures and reports regarding the certain tax losses described below. The derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned as Long v. Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian, defendants, and Office Depot, Inc., nominal defendant. The Special Litigation Committee (the “SLC”) appointed by the company’s Board of Directors to review the allegations issued its report on January 9, 2012. As set forth in the report, the SLC determined that the claims alleged in the Complaint should be dismissed. Accordingly, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on March 26, 2012. On June 11, 2012 plaintiff filed his opposition brief and filed a motion to strike the exhibits submitted by defendant in support of its motion to dismiss. On July 12, 2012, the company filed its reply brief and opposition to the motion to strike. On August 15, 2012, the Court granted Office Depot’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. The allegations made in the above lawsuits primarily relate to the company’s previous financial disclosures and reports regarding certain tax losses. On March 31, 2011, Office Depot announced that the IRS had denied the company’s claim to carry back certain tax losses to prior tax years under economic stimulus-based tax legislation enacted in 2009. As a result, on April 6, 2011, the company restated its financial results to revise the accounting treatment regarding its original tax position. The periods covered by the restatement are the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010 and each of the quarters ended June 26, 2010 and September 25, 2010. In addition, in the ordinary course of business, our sales to and transactions with government customers may be subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and review by governmental authorities and regulatory agencies, with which we cooperate. Many of these lawsuits, investigations, audits and reviews are resolved without material impact to the company. While claims in these matters may at times assert large demands, we do not believe that contingent liabilities related to these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect our financial position, results of our operations or cash flows. In addition to the foregoing, State of California et. al. ex. rel. David Sherwin v. Office Depot was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, and unsealed on October 19, 2012. This lawsuit relates to allegations regarding certain pricing practices in California under a now expired agreement that was in place between January 2, 2006 and January 1, 2011, pursuant to which state, local and non-profit agencies purchased office supplies (the “Purchasing Agreement”) from us. This lawsuit is in the early stages and we are unable to reasonably determine the amount of any potential liability. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Additionally, during the first quarter of 2011, we were notified that the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) commenced an investigation into certain pricing practices related to the Purchasing Agreement. We have cooperated with the DOJ on this matter. As discussed in Note I, the company has received a proposed tax and penalty assessment from the IRS totaling approximately $126 million. The company disagrees with this assessment.

Note M – Commitments and Contingencies

We are involved in litigation arising in the normal course of our business. While, from time to time, claims are asserted that make demands for a large sum of money (including, from time to time, actions which are asserted to be maintainable as class action suits), we do not believe that contingent liabilities related to these matters (including the matters discussed below), either individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect our financial position, results of our operations or cash flows.

On April 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain current and former executive officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking damages, fees, costs and equitable relief. The allegations made in this lawsuit primarily relate to the company’s previous financial disclosures and reports regarding the certain tax losses described below. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned as Climo v. Office Depot, Inc, Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian. The Court granted a request by the Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (“CLPF”) to appoint it as lead plaintiff in the case and the CLPF filed its amended complaint on September 6, 2011. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in November 2011. On May 24, 2012, the Court granted Office Depot’s motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff 20 days to file a second amended complaint, which it did not do. On July 31, 2012, the Court closed the case because of the plaintiff’s failure to file a second amended complaint in a timely manner.

On June 17, 2011, a derivative lawsuit was filed against certain current and former executive officers and the company, generally alleging that the officers breached their fiduciary duties. The allegations in this lawsuit primarily relate to the company’s previous financial disclosures and reports regarding the certain tax losses described below. The derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned as Long v. Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian, defendants, and Office Depot, Inc., nominal defendant. The Special Litigation Committee (the “SLC”) appointed by the company’s Board of Directors to review the allegations issued its report on January 9, 2012. As set forth in the report, the SLC determined that the claims alleged in the Complaint should be dismissed. Accordingly, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on March 26, 2012. On June 11, 2012 plaintiff filed his opposition brief and filed a motion to strike the exhibits submitted by defendant in support of its motion to dismiss. On July 12, 2012, the company filed its reply brief and opposition to the motion to strike. On August 15, 2012, the Court granted Office Depot’s motion to dismiss the Complaint.

The allegations made in the above lawsuits primarily relate to the company’s previous financial disclosures and reports regarding certain tax losses. On March 31, 2011, Office Depot announced that the IRS had denied the company’s claim to carry back certain tax losses to prior tax years under economic stimulus-based tax legislation enacted in 2009. As a result, on April 6, 2011, the company restated its financial results to revise the accounting treatment regarding its original tax position. The periods covered by the restatement are the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010 and each of the quarters ended June 26, 2010 and September 25, 2010.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, our sales to and transactions with government customers may be subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and review by governmental authorities and regulatory agencies, with which we cooperate. Many of these lawsuits, investigations, audits and reviews are resolved without material impact to the company. While claims in these matters may at times assert large demands, we do not believe that contingent liabilities related to these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect our financial position, results of our operations or cash flows. In addition to the foregoing, State of California et. al. ex. rel. David Sherwin v. Office Depot was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, and unsealed on October 19, 2012. This lawsuit relates to allegations regarding certain pricing practices in California under a now expired agreement that was in place between January 2, 2006 and January 1, 2011, pursuant to which state, local and non-profit agencies purchased office supplies (the “Purchasing Agreement”) from us. This lawsuit is in the early stages and we are unable to reasonably determine the amount of any potential liability. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Additionally, during the first quarter of 2011, we were notified that the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) commenced an investigation into certain pricing practices related to the Purchasing Agreement. We have cooperated with the DOJ on this matter.

As discussed in Note I, the company has received a proposed tax and penalty assessment from the IRS totaling approximately $126 million. The company disagrees with this assessment.