COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 28, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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. On February 4, 2015, Staples and Office Depot entered into the Staples Merger Agreement under which the companies would combine in a stock and cash transaction. On February 9, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by purported Office Depot shareholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Court”) challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies and individual members of Office Depot’s Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs in David Raul, v. Office Depot, Inc. et al. seek, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. Subsequently, eight other lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware making similar allegations, namely Beth Koeneke v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Jamison Miller v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Eric R. Gilbert v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., The Feivel and Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Office Depot, et al., Charles Miller v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., David Max v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Patrick Connors v. Office Depot, Inc. and Steve Renous v. Staples Inc. et al. The Court subsequently consolidated all of the Delaware cases and named Jamison Miller and Steve Renous as co-plaintiffs and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. Additionally, in February 2015, two lawsuits were filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, namely Keny Petit-Frere v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. and John Sweatman v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. alleging the same allegations. The lawsuits generally sought injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of the transaction, rescission of the transaction in the event it is consummated, damages, fees, costs, and other remedies. Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the Florida lawsuits for improper venue. 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 in 2009, State of California et al., ex rel David Sherwin v. Office Depot, Inc. (the “Sherwin lawsuit”) was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, and unsealed on October 16, 2012. The lawsuit asserted 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 the Company. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and other relief, including 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, as well as attorneys’ fees and other related legal matters. On December 19, 2014, Office Depot and the plaintiffs executed a Settlement Agreement to resolve the Sherwin lawsuit. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay the Plaintiffs $68 million to settle the matter (the “Settlement Amount”), as well as $9 million in legal fees, costs, and expenses. In exchange for, and in consideration of, the Company’s agreement to pay the Settlement Amount, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their action against the Company with prejudice. In February 2015, the court entered orders approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. The Settlement Amount was subsequently placed in escrow pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Company expects that the funds will be released from escrow and disbursed in accordance with the terms of the court’s orders during the second quarter of 2015. 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 (“ASMs”) 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 estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in the matter. OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Further, Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., formerly known as Constance Gibbons v. Office Depot, Inc., a putative class action that was instituted in May 2012, 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 ASMs with a clear and mutual understanding notification that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs in both complaints seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.” The Company believes in this case 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 estimate a reasonably possible range of loss 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. Additionally, as of March 28, 2015, the Company’s estimate of the range of reasonably possible losses for environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located was approximately $10 million to $25 million. The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As additional information becomes known, these estimates may change. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to the pending proceedings, however, 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 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.

On February 4, 2015, Staples and Office Depot entered into the Staples Merger Agreement under which the companies would combine in a stock and cash transaction. On February 9, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by purported Office Depot shareholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Court”) challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies and individual members of Office Depot’s Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs in David Raul, v. Office Depot, Inc. et al. seek, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. Subsequently, eight other lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware making similar allegations, namely Beth Koeneke v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Jamison Miller v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Eric R. Gilbert v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., The Feivel and Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Office Depot, et al., Charles Miller v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., David Max v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Patrick Connors v. Office Depot, Inc. and Steve Renous v. Staples Inc. et al. The Court subsequently consolidated all of the Delaware cases and named Jamison Miller and Steve Renous as co-plaintiffs and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. Additionally, in February 2015, two lawsuits were filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, namely Keny Petit-Frere v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. and John Sweatman v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. alleging the same allegations. The lawsuits generally sought injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of the transaction, rescission of the transaction in the event it is consummated, damages, fees, costs, and other remedies. Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the Florida lawsuits for improper venue.

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 in 2009, State of California et al., ex rel David Sherwin v. Office Depot, Inc. (the “Sherwin lawsuit”) was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, and unsealed on October 16, 2012. The lawsuit asserted 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 the Company. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and other relief, including 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, as well as attorneys’ fees and other related legal matters. On December 19, 2014, Office Depot and the plaintiffs executed a Settlement Agreement to resolve the Sherwin lawsuit. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay the Plaintiffs $68 million to settle the matter (the “Settlement Amount”), as well as $9 million in legal fees, costs, and expenses. In exchange for, and in consideration of, the Company’s agreement to pay the Settlement Amount, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their action against the Company with prejudice. In February 2015, the court entered orders approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. The Settlement Amount was subsequently placed in escrow pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Company expects that the funds will be released from escrow and disbursed in accordance with the terms of the court’s orders during the second quarter of 2015.

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 (“ASMs”) 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 estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in the matter. OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Further, Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., formerly known as Constance Gibbons v. Office Depot, Inc., a putative class action that was instituted in May 2012, 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 ASMs with a clear and mutual understanding notification that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs in both complaints seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.” The Company believes in this case 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 estimate a reasonably possible range of loss 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. Additionally, as of March 28, 2015, the Company’s estimate of the range of reasonably possible losses for environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located was approximately $10 million to $25 million. The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As additional information becomes known, these estimates may change. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to the pending proceedings, however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company’s business.