Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements	9 Months Ended
Nov. 29, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements	COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS Guarantees The Company has outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of November 29, 2014. These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of independent retail customers. The guarantees are generally for the entire terms of the leases or other debt obligations with remaining terms that range from less than one year to 16 years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately eight years. For each guarantee issued, if the independent retail customer defaults on a payment, the Company would be required to make payments under its guarantee. Generally, the guarantees are secured by indemnification agreements or personal guarantees of the independent retail customer. The Company reviews performance risk related to its guarantees of independent retail customer obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of November 29, 2014, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $73 ($55 on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, the Company believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under the Company’s guarantee arrangements. The Company is contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions. The Company could be required to satisfy the obligations under the leases if any of the assignees are unable to fulfill their lease obligations. Due to the wide distribution of the Company’s assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, the Company believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. The Company is a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which it may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters in the ordinary course of business, which indemnities may be secured by operation of law or otherwise. These agreements primarily relate to the Company’s commercial contracts, the TSA (as defined below), contracts entered into for the purchase and sale of stock or assets, operating leases and other real estate contracts, financial agreements, agreements to provide services to the Company and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While the Company’s aggregate indemnification obligation could result in a material liability, the Company is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. Following the sale of NAI, the Company remains contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees issued by SUPERVALU INC. with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was a subsidiary of the Company. As of November 29, 2014, using actuarial estimates as of June 30, 2014, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $232 ($208 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie the Company’s commitments, the Company believes that such contingent liabilities will continue to decline. Subsequent to the sale of NAI, NAI collateralized most of these obligations with letters of credit and surety bonds to numerous states. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized most of the self-insurance obligations for which the Company remains contingently liable, the Company believes that the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees. Information Technology Intrusions Intrusions Announced in August and September 2014 – On August 14, 2014 and September 29, 2014, the Company announced it had experienced separate criminal intrusions into the portion of its computer network that processes payment card transactions for some of its owned and franchised retail stores, including some of its associated stand-alone liquor stores. An investigation of those intrusions supported by third-party data forensics experts is ongoing. The Company believes these criminal intrusions may have resulted in the collection of account numbers, and in some cases also the expiration date, other numerical information and/or the cardholder’s name. With respect to the intrusion announced in August 2014, the Company currently believes that this information may have been collected from payment cards used during the period of June 22 (at the earliest) through July 17 (at the latest), 2014, at 209 SUPERVALU owned or franchised stores and stand-alone liquor stores, which stores operate under the Cub Foods, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher’s, Shop ’n Save, and Shoppers Food & Pharmacy banners. With respect to the intrusion announced in September 2014, the Company currently believes that this information may have been collected from payment cards used at some checkout lanes during the period of August 27 (at the earliest) through September 21 (at the latest), 2014 at four Minnesota franchised Cub Foods stores. Responses to Intrusions – Upon recognition of each intrusion, the Company took immediate steps to secure the affected part of its network, and the Company believes that it has eradicated the malware used in each intrusion. The Company notified the major payment card brands and federal law enforcement authorities and is cooperating in their efforts to investigate these intrusions, identify those responsible for the intrusions and determine whether any cardholder data was stolen by the intruder(s). The Company also notified several state Attorneys General of the intrusions. As to both intrusions, given the continuing nature of the investigation, it is possible that it will be determined that information was stolen from the Company during one or both of these intrusions or that time frames, locations, at-risk data, and/or other facts in addition to those described above will be identified in the future. The Company is offering customers who used their payment cards at the relevant stores during the relevant time periods 12 months of complimentary consumer identity protection services through AllClear ID. The Company has also established a call center to answer questions about the intrusions and the identity threat protection services being offered. Some stores owned and operated by Albertson’s LLC and NAI experienced related criminal intrusions. The Company provides information technology services to these Albertson’s LLC and NAI stores pursuant to the TSA (as defined below), and the Company has been working together with Albertson’s LLC and NAI to respond to the intrusions into their stores. The Company believes that any losses incurred by Albertson’s LLC or NAI as a result of the intrusions affecting their stores would not be the Company’s responsibility. Investigations and Proceedings – As a result of the criminal intrusions, the payment card brands are conducting investigations into whether the portion of the Company’s network that handles payment card data was compliant with applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and, if not, whether any non-compliance caused any compromise of payment card data that may have occurred during the intrusions. The Company’s network has previously been found to be compliant with those standards; however, the Company understands that, in other data breach situations, the forensic investigator working on behalf of the payment card brands has claimed that breached entities that previously had been found compliant with those standards were not in compliance at the time of the intrusion and that the alleged non-compliance caused at least some portion of the compromise of payment card data that allegedly occurred during the intrusion. As a result, the Company believes that the payment card brands may allege that the Company was not compliant with the applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and that such alleged non-compliance caused the compromise of payment card data during the intrusions. Moreover, if that happens, the Company believes the payment card brands may make claims against the Company for non-ordinary course operating expenses and incremental counterfeit fraud losses allegedly incurred by them or their issuers by reason of the intrusions. If that were to occur, the Company expects to dispute those claims. While the Company does not believe that a loss is probable by reason of these as yet unasserted claims, the Company believes that a loss in connection with these claims, should they be asserted, is reasonably possible; however, at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because the payment card brands’ investigation is ongoing and the payment card brands have not alleged what payment cards they consider to have been compromised, what data from those cards they consider to have been compromised, or the amount of their and/or their issuers' claimed losses. The Company does not currently believe that the amount, if any, paid on any payment card brand claims that might be asserted would be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. While the Company is not aware of any investigation into the intrusions having been initiated by any regulatory authority, it is possible that regulatory investigations into the intrusions could be initiated in the future and, were that to occur, it is possible that such investigations could result in claims being made against the Company by the regulatory authorities in question. If that were to occur, the Company expects to dispute those claims. As discussed in more detail below in this Note 12 under Legal Proceedings, four class action complaints have been filed against the Company related to the intrusions and are currently pending. As indicated in Note 12, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material loss from the four class actions is remote. It is possible that other similar complaints by consumers, banks or others may be filed against the Company in connection with the intrusions. Insurance Coverage – The Company maintains $50 of cyber threat insurance above a $1 deductible per incident and subject to certain sublimits, which it believes should mitigate the financial effect of these intrusions, including claims made or that might be made against the Company based on these intrusions. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these intrusions, including any related lawsuits, claims or other proceedings that might be initiated against the Company, will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Expenses – The Company has and expects to incur various costs related to the intrusions, including the cost of conducting the pending investigation, the cost of providing identity protection services to the Company’s customers and legal and other professional expenses. In the year-to-date period ended November 29, 2014, the Company recorded $5 of intrusion related costs and anticipated insurance proceeds of $3. These amounts were recorded within Selling and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. Anticipated insurance proceeds recorded for the insurance receivable were based on the Company’s insurance recovery assessment. This assessment included the review of applicable insurance policies, correspondence with the insurance carriers and analysis by legal counsel. Impact on Sales – The Company has not experienced weaker than anticipated sales subsequent to the intrusions. Other Contractual Commitments In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale and purchase and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology commitments. These contracts typically include either volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of November 29, 2014, the Company had approximately $299 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations. The Company and AB Acquisition entered into a binding term sheet with the PBGC relating to issues regarding the effect of the sale of NAI on certain SUPERVALU retirement plans. The agreement required that the Company not pay any dividends to its stockholders at any time for the period beginning on January 9, 2013 and ending on the earliest of (i) March 21, 2018, (ii) the date on which the total of all contributions made to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan on or after the closing date of the sale of NAI is at least $450 and (iii) the date on which SUPERVALU’s unsecured credit rating is BB+ from Standard & Poor’s or Ba1 from Moody’s (such earliest date, the end of the “PBGC Protection Period”). The Company had also agreed to make $100 in aggregate contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan in excess of the minimum required contributions at or before the end of fiscal years 2015 – 2017 (where such fiscal years end during the PBGC Protection Period), and AB Acquisition had agreed to provide a guarantee to the PBGC for such excess payments. On September 11, 2014, the Company, AB Acquisition and the PBGC amended the term sheet. Pursuant to that amendment, the Company made excess contributions of $47 to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan and the PBGC Protection Period ended on September 15, 2014. Including these excess contributions and the impact of the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 on pension funding requirements described above in Note 9—Benefit Plans, the Company anticipates fiscal 2015 total contributions to pension and other postretirement benefit plans to be approximately $120 to $125. The Company is no longer restricted by the term sheet from paying dividends to its stockholders and has fully satisfied its obligations to make excess contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan. While the Company is no longer restricted from paying dividends to its stockholders under the term sheet, the Company has no current intent to resume paying dividends. The payment of future dividends is subject to the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors and the requirements of Delaware law, and will depend on a variety of factors that the Company’s Board of Directors may deem relevant. In addition, as described above in Note 6—Long-Term Debt, the Company is limited in the aggregate amount of dividends that the Company may pay during the term of its Secured Term Loan Facility and would need to meet certain conditions in the Secured Term Loan Facility and the Revolving ABL Credit Facility before paying a dividend. During the quarter ended November 29, 2014, the Company recognized $69 of discrete tax benefits attributable to discontinued operations (see Note 14—Discontinued Operations), the majority of which relates to tangible property repair regulations. In connection with discussions on a possible amendment to the Transition Services Agreement with each of NAI and Albertson’s LLC (collectively, the “TSA”), the Company is in discussions with NAI and Albertson’s LLC on whether the Company will pay an amount equivalent to any portion of the related tax refund to NAI and Albertson’s LLC. The discussions on a possible amendment to the TSA are to address operational considerations that could arise as a result of the announced acquisition of Safeway Inc. by Albertson's LLC (the “Safeway Merger”) and certain other matters related to the TSA. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from the resolution of these issues is remote. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business. In the opinion of management, based upon currently-available facts, it is remote that the ultimate outcome of any lawsuits, claims and other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the overall results of the Company’s operations, its cash flows or its financial position. In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC (“IOS”); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer’s Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“C&S”) was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation’s bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court’s decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company’s Champaign, Illinois distribution center. On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company’s petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder. The case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings to be determined by the District Court. In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week method of pay (“FWW”) in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot’s motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same plaintiffs’ attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the Company’s aggregate obligation, including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs and settlement administration costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014 and final approval on July 30, 2014. Payments to class members began in mid-November 2014 and are expected to continue until February 2015. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 before tax ($3 after-tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter. The Company funded $5 into a qualified settlement fund on February 28, 2014. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company on August 14, 2014 and September 29, 2014 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). Kenneth Hanff, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, negligence and invasion of privacy. Steve McPeak, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Federal Stored Communications Act and Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and negligence. Gary Mertz, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. and AB Acquisition LLC, was filed in the United States District Court of Minnesota alleging negligence, violations of consumer protection laws and bailment. Alyssa Rocke, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC., AB Acquisition LLC, and New Albertson’s, Inc. d/b/a Jewel-Osco was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, violations of consumer protection acts, invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality and assumpsit. Plaintiffs in each action seek the recovery of an unspecified amount of damages. On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On December 16, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the cases transferred to the District Court in Minnesota. In December 2014, the United States Department of Labor (the “DOL”), in connection with an audit of the SUPERVALU Group Health Plan (the “Group Health Plan”) and the SUPERVALU Retiree Benefit Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), alleged three violations of its regulations relating to loan transactions between the active and retiree plans, the Company’s treatment of three rebates it had received from insurance carriers and a description of the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act by the Company’s third party administrator in its written materials. The Company is in discussions with the DOL regarding these allegations, including whether and, if so, when the Company would be required to make contributions to the trusts that fund the Group Health Plan in order to remediate the alleged loan transactions. While the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that the DOL will require additional contributions to the trusts that fund the Group Health Plan and that the DOL will impose penalties or sanctions, at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because the DOL has not communicated whether and, if so, in what amount it will impose monetary penalties or other sanctions. The Company does not currently believe that the amount of additional contributions, penalties or sanctions, if any, imposed by the DOL would be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary materially from current expectations. The Company regularly monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change its predictions with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related costs and exposures. With respect to the IOS, C&S, Criminal Intrusion and DOL matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a material loss is remote. It is possible, although management believes it is remote, that material differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

Guarantees

The Company has outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of November 29, 2014. These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of independent retail customers. The guarantees are generally for the entire terms of the leases or other debt obligations with remaining terms that range from less than one year to 16 years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately eight years. For each guarantee issued, if the independent retail customer defaults on a payment, the Company would be required to make payments under its guarantee. Generally, the guarantees are secured by indemnification agreements or personal guarantees of the independent retail customer.

The Company reviews performance risk related to its guarantees of independent retail customer obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of November 29, 2014, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $73 ($55 on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, the Company believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under the Company’s guarantee arrangements.

The Company is contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions. The Company could be required to satisfy the obligations under the leases if any of the assignees are unable to fulfill their lease obligations. Due to the wide distribution of the Company’s assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, the Company believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote.

The Company is a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which it may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters in the ordinary course of business, which indemnities may be secured by operation of law or otherwise. These agreements primarily relate to the Company’s commercial contracts, the TSA (as defined below), contracts entered into for the purchase and sale of stock or assets, operating leases and other real estate contracts, financial agreements, agreements to provide services to the Company and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While the Company’s aggregate indemnification obligation could result in a material liability, the Company is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability.

Following the sale of NAI, the Company remains contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees issued by SUPERVALU INC. with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was a subsidiary of the Company. As of November 29, 2014, using actuarial estimates as of June 30, 2014, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $232 ($208 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie the Company’s commitments, the Company believes that such contingent liabilities will continue to decline. Subsequent to the sale of NAI, NAI collateralized most of these obligations with letters of credit and surety bonds to numerous states. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized most of the self-insurance obligations for which the Company remains contingently liable, the Company believes that the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees.

Information Technology Intrusions

Intrusions Announced in August and September 2014 – On August 14, 2014 and September 29, 2014, the Company announced it had experienced separate criminal intrusions into the portion of its computer network that processes payment card transactions for some of its owned and franchised retail stores, including some of its associated stand-alone liquor stores. An investigation of those intrusions supported by third-party data forensics experts is ongoing. The Company believes these criminal intrusions may have resulted in the collection of account numbers, and in some cases also the expiration date, other numerical information and/or the cardholder’s name. With respect to the intrusion announced in August 2014, the Company currently believes that this information may have been collected from payment cards used during the period of June 22 (at the earliest) through July 17 (at the latest), 2014, at 209 SUPERVALU owned or franchised stores and stand-alone liquor stores, which stores operate under the Cub Foods, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher’s, Shop ’n Save, and Shoppers Food & Pharmacy banners. With respect to the intrusion announced in September 2014, the Company currently believes that this information may have been collected from payment cards used at some checkout lanes during the period of August 27 (at the earliest) through September 21 (at the latest), 2014 at four Minnesota franchised Cub Foods stores.

Responses to Intrusions – Upon recognition of each intrusion, the Company took immediate steps to secure the affected part of its network, and the Company believes that it has eradicated the malware used in each intrusion. The Company notified the major payment card brands and federal law enforcement authorities and is cooperating in their efforts to investigate these intrusions, identify those responsible for the intrusions and determine whether any cardholder data was stolen by the intruder(s). The Company also notified several state Attorneys General of the intrusions. As to both intrusions, given the continuing nature of the investigation, it is possible that it will be determined that information was stolen from the Company during one or both of these intrusions or that time frames, locations, at-risk data, and/or other facts in addition to those described above will be identified in the future.

The Company is offering customers who used their payment cards at the relevant stores during the relevant time periods 12 months of complimentary consumer identity protection services through AllClear ID. The Company has also established a call center to answer questions about the intrusions and the identity threat protection services being offered.

Some stores owned and operated by Albertson’s LLC and NAI experienced related criminal intrusions. The Company provides information technology services to these Albertson’s LLC and NAI stores pursuant to the TSA (as defined below), and the Company has been working together with Albertson’s LLC and NAI to respond to the intrusions into their stores. The Company believes that any losses incurred by Albertson’s LLC or NAI as a result of the intrusions affecting their stores would not be the Company’s responsibility.

Investigations and Proceedings – As a result of the criminal intrusions, the payment card brands are conducting investigations into whether the portion of the Company’s network that handles payment card data was compliant with applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and, if not, whether any non-compliance caused any compromise of payment card data that may have occurred during the intrusions. The Company’s network has previously been found to be compliant with those standards; however, the Company understands that, in other data breach situations, the forensic investigator working on behalf of the payment card brands has claimed that breached entities that previously had been found compliant with those standards were not in compliance at the time of the intrusion and that the alleged non-compliance caused at least some portion of the compromise of payment card data that allegedly occurred during the intrusion. As a result, the Company believes that the payment card brands may allege that the Company was not compliant with the applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and that such alleged non-compliance caused the compromise of payment card data during the intrusions. Moreover, if that happens, the Company believes the payment card brands may make claims against the Company for non-ordinary course operating expenses and incremental counterfeit fraud losses allegedly incurred by them or their issuers by reason of the intrusions. If that were to occur, the Company expects to dispute those claims. While the Company does not believe that a loss is probable by reason of these as yet unasserted claims, the Company believes that a loss in connection with these claims, should they be asserted, is reasonably possible; however, at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because the payment card brands’ investigation is ongoing and the payment card brands have not alleged what payment cards they consider to have been compromised, what data from those cards they consider to have been compromised, or the amount of their and/or their issuers' claimed losses. The Company does not currently believe that the amount, if any, paid on any payment card brand claims that might be asserted would be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

While the Company is not aware of any investigation into the intrusions having been initiated by any regulatory authority, it is possible that regulatory investigations into the intrusions could be initiated in the future and, were that to occur, it is possible that such investigations could result in claims being made against the Company by the regulatory authorities in question. If that were to occur, the Company expects to dispute those claims.

As discussed in more detail below in this Note 12 under Legal Proceedings, four class action complaints have been filed against the Company related to the intrusions and are currently pending. As indicated in Note 12, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material loss from the four class actions is remote. It is possible that other similar complaints by consumers, banks or others may be filed against the Company in connection with the intrusions.

Insurance Coverage – The Company maintains $50 of cyber threat insurance above a $1 deductible per incident and subject to certain sublimits, which it believes should mitigate the financial effect of these intrusions, including claims made or that might be made against the Company based on these intrusions. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these intrusions, including any related lawsuits, claims or other proceedings that might be initiated against the Company, will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Expenses – The Company has and expects to incur various costs related to the intrusions, including the cost of conducting the pending investigation, the cost of providing identity protection services to the Company’s customers and legal and other professional expenses. In the year-to-date period ended November 29, 2014, the Company recorded $5 of intrusion related costs and anticipated insurance proceeds of $3. These amounts were recorded within Selling and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. Anticipated insurance proceeds recorded for the insurance receivable were based on the Company’s insurance recovery assessment. This assessment included the review of applicable insurance policies, correspondence with the insurance carriers and analysis by legal counsel.

Impact on Sales – The Company has not experienced weaker than anticipated sales subsequent to the intrusions.

Other Contractual Commitments

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale and purchase and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology commitments. These contracts typically include either volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of November 29, 2014, the Company had approximately $299 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations.

The Company and AB Acquisition entered into a binding term sheet with the PBGC relating to issues regarding the effect of the sale of NAI on certain SUPERVALU retirement plans. The agreement required that the Company not pay any dividends to its stockholders at any time for the period beginning on January 9, 2013 and ending on the earliest of (i) March 21, 2018, (ii) the date on which the total of all contributions made to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan on or after the closing date of the sale of NAI is at least $450 and (iii) the date on which SUPERVALU’s unsecured credit rating is BB+ from Standard & Poor’s or Ba1 from Moody’s (such earliest date, the end of the “PBGC Protection Period”). The Company had also agreed to make $100 in aggregate contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan in excess of the minimum required contributions at or before the end of fiscal years 2015 – 2017 (where such fiscal years end during the PBGC Protection Period), and AB Acquisition had agreed to provide a guarantee to the PBGC for such excess payments. On September 11, 2014, the Company, AB Acquisition and the PBGC amended the term sheet. Pursuant to that amendment, the Company made excess contributions of $47 to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan and the PBGC Protection Period ended on September 15, 2014. Including these excess contributions and the impact of the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 on pension funding requirements described above in Note 9—Benefit Plans, the Company anticipates fiscal 2015 total contributions to pension and other postretirement benefit plans to be approximately $120 to $125. The Company is no longer restricted by the term sheet from paying dividends to its stockholders and has fully satisfied its obligations to make excess contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan. While the Company is no longer restricted from paying dividends to its stockholders under the term sheet, the Company has no current intent to resume paying dividends. The payment of future dividends is subject to the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors and the requirements of Delaware law, and will depend on a variety of factors that the Company’s Board of Directors may deem relevant. In addition, as described above in Note 6—Long-Term Debt, the Company is limited in the aggregate amount of dividends that the Company may pay during the term of its Secured Term Loan Facility and would need to meet certain conditions in the Secured Term Loan Facility and the Revolving ABL Credit Facility before paying a dividend.

During the quarter ended November 29, 2014, the Company recognized $69 of discrete tax benefits attributable to discontinued operations (see Note 14—Discontinued Operations), the majority of which relates to tangible property repair regulations. In connection with discussions on a possible amendment to the Transition Services Agreement with each of NAI and Albertson’s LLC (collectively, the “TSA”), the Company is in discussions with NAI and Albertson’s LLC on whether the Company will pay an amount equivalent to any portion of the related tax refund to NAI and Albertson’s LLC. The discussions on a possible amendment to the TSA are to address operational considerations that could arise as a result of the announced acquisition of Safeway Inc. by Albertson's LLC (the “Safeway Merger”) and certain other matters related to the TSA. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from the resolution of these issues is remote.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business. In the opinion of management, based upon currently-available facts, it is remote that the ultimate outcome of any lawsuits, claims and other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the overall results of the Company’s operations, its cash flows or its financial position.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC (“IOS”); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer’s Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“C&S”) was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation’s bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court’s decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company’s Champaign, Illinois distribution center. On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company’s petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder. The case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings to be determined by the District Court.

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week method of pay (“FWW”) in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot’s motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same plaintiffs’ attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the Company’s aggregate obligation, including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs and settlement administration costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014 and final approval on July 30, 2014. Payments to class members began in mid-November 2014 and are expected to continue until February 2015. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 before tax ($3 after-tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter. The Company funded $5 into a qualified settlement fund on February 28, 2014.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company on August 14, 2014 and September 29, 2014 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). Kenneth Hanff, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, negligence and invasion of privacy. Steve McPeak, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Federal Stored Communications Act and Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and negligence. Gary Mertz, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. and AB Acquisition LLC, was filed in the United States District Court of Minnesota alleging negligence, violations of consumer protection laws and bailment. Alyssa Rocke, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC., AB Acquisition LLC, and New Albertson’s, Inc. d/b/a Jewel-Osco was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, violations of consumer protection acts, invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality and assumpsit. Plaintiffs in each action seek the recovery of an unspecified amount of damages. On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On December 16, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the cases transferred to the District Court in Minnesota.

In December 2014, the United States Department of Labor (the “DOL”), in connection with an audit of the SUPERVALU Group Health Plan (the “Group Health Plan”) and the SUPERVALU Retiree Benefit Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), alleged three violations of its regulations relating to loan transactions between the active and retiree plans, the Company’s treatment of three rebates it had received from insurance carriers and a description of the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act by the Company’s third party administrator in its written materials. The Company is in discussions with the DOL regarding these allegations, including whether and, if so, when the Company would be required to make contributions to the trusts that fund the Group Health Plan in order to remediate the alleged loan transactions. While the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that the DOL will require additional contributions to the trusts that fund the Group Health Plan and that the DOL will impose penalties or sanctions, at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because the DOL has not communicated whether and, if so, in what amount it will impose monetary penalties or other sanctions. The Company does not currently believe that the amount of additional contributions, penalties or sanctions, if any, imposed by the DOL would be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation and estimating related costs and exposures involves substantial uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes, costs and exposures to vary materially from current expectations. The Company regularly monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change its predictions with respect to outcomes and its estimates with respect to related costs and exposures.

With respect to the IOS, C&S, Criminal Intrusion and DOL matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a material loss is remote. It is possible, although management believes it is remote, that material differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such predictions or estimates, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.