COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2013
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments On June 25, 2011, OfficeMax, with which the Company merged in November 2013, entered into a paper supply contract with Boise White Paper, L.L.C. (“Boise Paper”), under which OfficeMax agreed to purchase office papers from Boise Paper, and Boise Paper has agreed to supply office papers to OfficeMax, subject to the terms and conditions of the paper supply contract. The paper supply contract replaced the previous supply contract executed in 2004 with Boise Paper. The Company assumed the commitment under a paper supply contract to buy OfficeMax’s North American requirements for office paper, subject to certain conditions. The paper supply contract provides the Company some flexibility to purchase paper from paper producers other than Boise Paper. The paper supply contract’s term will expire on December 31, 2017, followed by a gradual reduction of the Company’s purchase requirements over a two year period thereafter. However, if certain circumstances occur, the agreement may be terminated earlier. If terminated, it will be followed by a gradual reduction of the Company’s purchase requirements over a two year period. Purchases under the agreement were $87 million since the Merger date. In accordance with an amended and restated joint venture agreement, the minority owner of Grupo OfficeMax, the Company’s joint-venture in Mexico acquired through the Merger in 2013, can elect to require the Company to purchase the minority owner’s 49% interest in the joint venture if certain earnings targets are achieved. Earnings targets are calculated quarterly on a rolling four-quarter basis. Accordingly, the targets may be achieved in one quarter but not in the next. If the earnings targets are achieved and the minority owner elects to require the Company to purchase the minority owner’s interest, the purchase price is based on the joint venture’s earnings and the current market multiples of similar companies. At the end of 2013, Grupo OfficeMax has not met the earnings targets and the noncontrolling interest is recorded at its carrying value, which represents the fair value paid at the Merger date, adjusted for the losses of Grupo OfficeMax since the Merger date. Indemnifications Indemnification obligations may arise from the Asset Purchase Agreement between OfficeMax Incorporated, OfficeMax Southern Company, Minidoka Paper Company, Forest Products Holdings, L.L.C. and Boise Land & Timber Corp. The Company has agreed to provide indemnification with respect to a variety of obligations. These indemnification obligations are subject, in some cases, to survival periods, deductibles and caps. At December 28, 2013, the Company is not aware of any material liabilities arising from these indemnifications. Legal Matters 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 its financial position, results of 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 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles after a remand order entered by the judge on January 29, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company believes 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, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in the matter. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Additionally, during the first quarter of 2011, the Company was notified that the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) commenced an investigation into certain pricing practices related to the Purchasing Agreement. The Company has 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 (“Court”) 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. A Stipulation of Settlement was entered into on November 6, 2013, and filed with the Court on November 7, 2013. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 11, 2013, and final settlement approval was entered by the Court on January 21, 2014. The amount paid in this settlement was not material to the Company’s financial statements. In addition to the foregoing, Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers as exempt employees. The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in the matter. OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Further, Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint similarly alleges that Office Depot misclassified its assistant store managers as exempt employees. The Company believes in this case as well that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in these matters. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits. OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale. The Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company’s business.

NOTE 17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

On June 25, 2011, OfficeMax, with which the Company merged in November 2013, entered into a paper supply contract with Boise White Paper, L.L.C. (“Boise Paper”), under which OfficeMax agreed to purchase office papers from Boise Paper, and Boise Paper has agreed to supply office papers to OfficeMax, subject to the terms and conditions of the paper supply contract. The paper supply contract replaced the previous supply contract executed in 2004 with Boise Paper. The Company assumed the commitment under a paper supply contract to buy OfficeMax’s North American requirements for office paper, subject to certain conditions. The paper supply contract provides the Company some flexibility to purchase paper from paper producers other than Boise Paper. The paper supply contract’s term will expire on December 31, 2017, followed by a gradual reduction of the Company’s purchase requirements over a two year period thereafter. However, if certain circumstances occur, the agreement may be terminated earlier. If terminated, it will be followed by a gradual reduction of the Company’s purchase requirements over a two year period. Purchases under the agreement were $87 million since the Merger date.

In accordance with an amended and restated joint venture agreement, the minority owner of Grupo OfficeMax, the Company’s joint-venture in Mexico acquired through the Merger in 2013, can elect to require the Company to purchase the minority owner’s 49% interest in the joint venture if certain earnings targets are achieved. Earnings targets are calculated quarterly on a rolling four-quarter basis. Accordingly, the targets may be achieved in one quarter but not in the next. If the earnings targets are achieved and the minority owner elects to require the Company to purchase the minority owner’s interest, the purchase price is based on the joint venture’s earnings and the current market multiples of similar companies. At the end of 2013, Grupo OfficeMax has not met the earnings targets and the noncontrolling interest is recorded at its carrying value, which represents the fair value paid at the Merger date, adjusted for the losses of Grupo OfficeMax since the Merger date.

Indemnifications

Indemnification obligations may arise from the Asset Purchase Agreement between OfficeMax Incorporated, OfficeMax Southern Company, Minidoka Paper Company, Forest Products Holdings, L.L.C. and Boise Land & Timber Corp. The Company has agreed to provide indemnification with respect to a variety of obligations. These indemnification obligations are subject, in some cases, to survival periods, deductibles and caps. At December 28, 2013, the Company is not aware of any material liabilities arising from these indemnifications.

Legal Matters

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 its financial position, results of 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 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles after a remand order entered by the judge on January 29, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company believes 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, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in the matter. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Additionally, during the first quarter of 2011, the Company was notified that the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) commenced an investigation into certain pricing practices related to the Purchasing Agreement. The Company has 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 (“Court”) 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. A Stipulation of Settlement was entered into on November 6, 2013, and filed with the Court on November 7, 2013. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 11, 2013, and final settlement approval was entered by the Court on January 21, 2014. The amount paid in this settlement was not material to the Company’s financial statements.

In addition to the foregoing, Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers as exempt employees. The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in the matter. OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Further, Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint similarly alleges that Office Depot misclassified its assistant store managers as exempt employees. The Company believes in this case as well that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in these matters. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits.

OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale. The Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company’s business.