COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters The Company is involved in litigation, including class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is also subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and reviews by government authorities and regulatory agencies. While claims in these matters may at times involve substantial monetary demands, except as otherwise disclosed herein the Company does not believe that contingent liabilities related to any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. However, in the future we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of these matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. In addition to the foregoing in 2009, 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 16, 2012. On January 29, 2014, the case, which had been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was remanded back to the Superior Court. The lawsuit asserts claims, including claims under the California False Claims Act, based on allegations regarding certain pricing practices under now expired agreements that were in place between 2001 and January 1, 2011, pursuant to which governmental agencies purchased office supplies from us. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and other relief and, to the extent that liability is found under the California False Claims Act, the Company could also be subject to the trebling of damages and statutory penalties. On June 25, 2014, the Company participated in a non-binding, voluntary mediation in which the Company negotiated a potential settlement to resolve the matter. During the second quarter of 2014, the Company recorded an $80 million incremental increase to the legal accrual which included the potential settlement of $68 million, as well as attorneys’ fees and other related legal matters. The parties continue to work to resolve the matter. Any final settlement would require court approval and there can be no assurance that the settlement will be reached at all or on the terms proposed. In September 2012, Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York 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, willfully failed to pay overtime compensation, and seeks unpaid wages, punitive damages, and penalties for record keeping violations. 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 alleges that Office Depot’s use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to provide its assistant managers with a clear and mutual understanding that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. In both cases, the plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. 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 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

The Company is involved in litigation, including class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is also subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and reviews by government authorities and regulatory agencies. While claims in these matters may at times involve substantial monetary demands, except as otherwise disclosed herein the Company does not believe that contingent liabilities related to any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. However, in the future we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of these matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows.

In addition to the foregoing in 2009, 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 16, 2012. On January 29, 2014, the case, which had been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was remanded back to the Superior Court. The lawsuit asserts claims, including claims under the California False Claims Act, based on allegations regarding certain pricing practices under now expired agreements that were in place between 2001 and January 1, 2011, pursuant to which governmental agencies purchased office supplies from us. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and other relief and, to the extent that liability is found under the California False Claims Act, the Company could also be subject to the trebling of damages and statutory penalties. On June 25, 2014, the Company participated in a non-binding, voluntary mediation in which the Company negotiated a potential settlement to resolve the matter. During the second quarter of 2014, the Company recorded an $80 million incremental increase to the legal accrual which included the potential settlement of $68 million, as well as attorneys’ fees and other related legal matters. The parties continue to work to resolve the matter. Any final settlement would require court approval and there can be no assurance that the settlement will be reached at all or on the terms proposed.

In September 2012, Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York 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, willfully failed to pay overtime compensation, and seeks unpaid wages, punitive damages, and penalties for record keeping violations. 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 alleges that Office Depot’s use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to provide its assistant managers with a clear and mutual understanding that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. In both cases, the plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. 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.