COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 25, 2016
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 10. 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. In addition, in the ordinary course of business, sales to and transactions with government customers may be subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and reviews 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. OfficeMax vigorously defended itself in this lawsuit and in November 2015 reached a settlement in the amount of $3.53 million which the court approved in final form in June 2016. This case has been dismissed. 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 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 seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses in this case 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 this matter. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. 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 June 25, 2016, the Company has made provision for environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located. For these environmental liabilities, our estimated range of reasonably possible losses 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 10. 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.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, sales to and transactions with government customers may be subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and reviews 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. OfficeMax vigorously defended itself in this lawsuit and in November 2015 reached a settlement in the amount of $3.53 million which the court approved in final form in June 2016. This case has been dismissed.

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 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 seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses in this case 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 this matter. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.

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 June 25, 2016, the Company has made provision for environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located. For these environmental liabilities, our estimated range of reasonably possible losses 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.