COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 26, 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. Beginning on February 9, 2015, a number of putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported Office Depot stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Court”) challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies—Office Depot, Staples, Merger Sub, and Starboard Value LP— 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 sought, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. The Court subsequently consolidated all nine of the Delaware cases and named Jamison Miller and Steve Renous as lead plaintiffs. The consolidated case is named In re Office Depot, Inc. Stockholders Litigation Consolidated, C.A. No. 10655-CB. After limited discovery, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed on certain additional disclosures to the Company’s definitive proxy statement filed on May 18, 2015, which were made in a Form 8-K filing on June 5, 2015, and the plaintiffs withdrew from the calendar their planned motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger. On September 18, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved a stipulation under which lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to themselves and without prejudice as to the putative class members. The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating lead plaintiffs’ counsel’s anticipated application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement expenses in connection with the disclosures in the June 5, 2015 Form 8-K. The Company subsequently agreed to pay $0.5 million to lead plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the action. 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. making the same allegations as in the Delaware actions. 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, and that motion was granted on May 15, 2015. 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, 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. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to the pending proceedings. Additionally, as of September 26, 2015, our 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, 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. Beginning on February 9, 2015, a number of putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported Office Depot stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Court”) challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies—Office Depot, Staples, Merger Sub, and Starboard Value LP— 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 sought, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. The Court subsequently consolidated all nine of the Delaware cases and named Jamison Miller and Steve Renous as lead plaintiffs. The consolidated case is named In re Office Depot, Inc. Stockholders Litigation Consolidated, C.A. No. 10655-CB. After limited discovery, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed on certain additional disclosures to the Company’s definitive proxy statement filed on May 18, 2015, which were made in a Form 8-K filing on June 5, 2015, and the plaintiffs withdrew from the calendar their planned motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger. On September 18, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved a stipulation under which lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to themselves and without prejudice as to the putative class members. The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating lead plaintiffs’ counsel’s anticipated application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement expenses in connection with the disclosures in the June 5, 2015 Form 8-K. The Company subsequently agreed to pay $0.5 million to lead plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the action. 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. making the same allegations as in the Delaware actions. 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, and that motion was granted on May 15, 2015.

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, 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. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to the pending proceedings. Additionally, as of September 26, 2015, our 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, however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company’s business.