Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 28, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies	Note O – Commitments and Contingencies The Company is involved in litigation arising in the normal course of 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), the Company does not believe that contingent liabilities related to these matters (including the matters discussed below), either individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, in the ordinary course of business, sales to and transactions with government customers may be subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and review by governmental authorities and regulatory agencies, with which the Company cooperates. 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, the Company does 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 now expired agreements that were in place between 2001 and 2011, pursuant to which state, local and non-profit agencies purchased office supplies (the “Purchasing Agreements”) from us. This action seeks as relief monetary damages. This lawsuit is now pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California after a Notice of Removal was filed by the Company. We believe that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses on one claim in this matter and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stages of the other claims and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we are unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in the matter. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit, and filed a motion to dismiss. The Court vacated the motion to dismiss while the Court determines its jurisdiction. 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. On February 20, 2013, Office Depot and OfficeMax announced a definitive agreement under which the companies would combine in an all-stock merger-of-equals transaction. Between February 25, 2013 and March 29, 2013, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported OfficeMax shareholders in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in DuPage County, Illinois challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies and individual members of OfficeMax’s Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. The lawsuits were consolidated as Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated et. al. Subsequently, two similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Like the state court lawsuits, the federal actions alleged that the disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus was inadequate. On June 25, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) regarding settlement of the litigation. In consideration for the settlement and release, Office Depot and OfficeMax made certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The MOU contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval. Office Depot does not believe that the amount paid in this settlement will be material to its financial statements.

Note O – Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is involved in litigation arising in the normal course of 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), the Company does not believe that contingent liabilities related to these matters (including the matters discussed below), either individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, sales to and transactions with government customers may be subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and review by governmental authorities and regulatory agencies, with which the Company cooperates. 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, the Company does 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 now expired agreements that were in place between 2001 and 2011, pursuant to which state, local and non-profit agencies purchased office supplies (the “Purchasing Agreements”) from us. This action seeks as relief monetary damages. This lawsuit is now pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California after a Notice of Removal was filed by the Company. We believe that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses on one claim in this matter and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stages of the other claims and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we are unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in the matter. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit, and filed a motion to dismiss. The Court vacated the motion to dismiss while the Court determines its jurisdiction. 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.

On February 20, 2013, Office Depot and OfficeMax announced a definitive agreement under which the companies would combine in an all-stock merger-of-equals transaction. Between February 25, 2013 and March 29, 2013, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported OfficeMax shareholders in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in DuPage County, Illinois challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies and individual members of OfficeMax’s Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. The lawsuits were consolidated as Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated et. al. Subsequently, two similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Like the state court lawsuits, the federal actions alleged that the disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus was inadequate. On June 25, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) regarding settlement of the litigation. In consideration for the settlement and release, Office Depot and OfficeMax made certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The MOU contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval. Office Depot does not believe that the amount paid in this settlement will be material to its financial statements.