Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements	6 Months Ended
Sep. 10, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements	NOTE 12—COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS Potential Separation of Save-A-Lot Business On October 16, 2016, the Company, Moran Foods, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, Smith Acquisition Corp. (the “Purchaser”), an affiliate of Onex Partners Manager LP, and Smith Merger Sub Corp., a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of the Purchaser, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which the Purchaser will acquire the Save-A-Lot business of the Company. See Note 15—Subsequent Events. Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities The Company has outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of September 10, 2016. These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of wholesale 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 15 years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately nine years. For each guarantee issued, if the wholesale customer or other third party 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 wholesale customer. The Company reviews performance risk related to its guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of September 10, 2016, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $62 and represented $47 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 lease 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, service agreements, 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 New Albertson's Inc. ("NAI") on March 21, 2013, the Company remains contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees issued by SUPERVALU with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was a subsidiary of the Company. As of September 10, 2016, using actuarial estimates as of June 30, 2016, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $138 ($123 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. Agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and Affiliates In connection with the sale of NAI, the Company entered into various agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and its affiliates related to on-going operations, including a Transition Services Agreement with each of NAI and Albertson’s LLC (collectively, the “TSA”) and operating and supply agreements. At the time of the sale of NAI, these arrangements had initial terms ranging from 12 months to five years, and are generally subject to renewal upon mutual agreement by the parties thereto and also include termination provisions that can be exercised by each party. On September 6, 2016, NAI and Albertson’s LLC each notified the Company that it was again exercising its right to renew the term of their respective Transition Services Agreement for an additional year. Pursuant to this notice, each TSA will now expire on September 21, 2018 unless renewed again by notice given no later than September 21, 2017. In addition, the Company operates a distribution center owned by NAI. On April 16, 2015, the Company entered into a letter agreement pursuant to which the Company is providing services to NAI and Albertson’s LLC as needed to transition and wind down the TSA. In exchange for these transition and wind down services, the Company is entitled to receive eight payments of approximately $6 every six months for aggregate fees of $50. These payments are separate from and incremental to the fixed and variable fees the Company receives under the TSA. The Company estimates that the complete transition and wind down of the TSA could take approximately two to three more years. On May 28, 2015, the Company entered into a letter agreement with NAI and Albertson's LLC pursuant to which the Company received certain additional rights and benefits, and the Company and NAI and Albertson's LLC (and certain of their affiliates, including Safeway, with respect to provisions of the letter agreement applicable to them) agreed to resolve several issues. Among other matters resolved, NAI, Albertson's LLC and AB Acquisition agreed to no longer challenge, and waive all rights relating to, the Company's filing with the IRS in fiscal 2015 for a change in accounting method for NAI and its subsidiaries pursuant to the tangible property repair regulations. In consideration for the granting of the additional rights and benefits to the Company and the resolution of the various matters under the letter agreement, the Company paid $35 to AB Acquisition, the parent entity of NAI and Albertson's LLC. Haggen The Company entered into a transition services agreement with Haggen in December 2014 (the “Haggen TSA”) to provide certain services to 164 stores owned and being acquired by Haggen in five states. The Company also entered into a supply agreement with Haggen to supply goods and products to Haggen stores in Washington and Oregon. On September 8, 2015, Haggen filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Through the bankruptcy process, Haggen has now closed or sold all 164 stores. The transition and wind down of the Haggen TSA and supply agreement occurred in the second quarter of fiscal 2017, with the Company now providing limited services in connection with the wind down of the Haggen estate. The Company filed approximately $2 of administrative 503(b)(9) priority claims and approximately $8 of unsecured claims with the bankruptcy court, including a number of contingent claims. On September 30, 2016, the bankruptcy court approved settlement agreements resolving the Company’s unsecured claims against Haggen. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreements, the Company received approximately $3 from Haggen on October 11, 2016, and it anticipates Haggen will make further payments of approximately $2 on account of the Company’s claims. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Haggen has agreed not to pursue claw-backs of any transfers made to the Company. The Company could be exposed to claims from third parties from which the Company sourced products, services, licenses and similar benefits on behalf of Haggen. The Company has reserved for probable losses related to a portion of these claims and receivables. It is reasonably possible that the Company could experience losses in excess of the amount of such reserves; however, at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of such excess losses because of the factual and legal issues related to whether the Company would have liability for any such third-party claims, if such third-party claims were asserted against the Company. Information Technology Intrusions Computer Network Intrusions – In fiscal 2015, the Company announced it had experienced two 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. 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 new or different time frames, locations, at-risk data, and/or other facts will be identified in the future. 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, 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 and, although the Company’s network has previously been found to be compliant with applicable data security standards, the forensic investigator working on behalf of the payment card brands has concluded that the Company was not in compliance at the time of the intrusions and that the alleged non-compliance caused at least some portion of the compromise of payment card data that allegedly occurred during the intrusions. On August 1, 2016, MasterCard provided notice of its assessment of non-ordinary course expenses and incremental counterfeit fraud losses allegedly incurred by them or their issuers as a result of the criminal intrusions. On September 1, 2016, the Company submitted an appeal of the assessment to MasterCard and, while the Company continues to believe that the assessment is without merit, the Company believes that a settlement with MasterCard is probable. The Company expects the other payment card brands to also 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. The Company believes these payment card brands will also 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 and 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 accrued for settlement of the MasterCard assessment and any amount that may be paid for other payment card brand claims that might be asserted will be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. In addition, one payment card brand has placed the Company in a “probationary status” for a period of two years following the Company's re-validation as PCI-DSS compliant, during which time the Company's failure to comply with the probationary requirements set forth by the payment card brand could result in the imposition of further conditions, including but not limited to disqualification from the payment system. The Company does not anticipate material costs to comply with the probationary requirements. On October 23, 2015, the Company received a letter from a multistate group of Attorneys General seeking information regarding the intrusions. The Company is cooperating with the request. To date, no claims have been asserted against the Company related to this inquiry. If any claims are asserted, the Company expects to dispute those claims. As discussed in more detail below in this Note 12 under Legal Proceedings, four class action complaints related to the intrusions have been filed against the Company and consolidated into one action and are currently pending. As indicated below, 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 and Expenses – The Company had $50 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 at the time of the intrusions, 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. The Company now maintains $90 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of approximately $3, in each case subject to certain sublimits. 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 September 10, 2016, the Company had approximately $330 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations. 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, the likelihood 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 is remote. 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 that 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 that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in 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. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded 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 and potentially other distribution centers. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs’ request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of retailers in the Midwest and the Company filed its response on May 6, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only one of which is suing the Company (the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class). On September 21, 2016, the Company filed a petition with the 8th Circuit seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision. The District Court has ordered a mandatory settlement conference for February 14-15, 2017. The Company continues to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the mandatory settlement conference, it is reasonably possible that the parties will engage in settlement negotiations as required by the District Court, which may result in a settlement of the matter. However, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the procedural status of the case, the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ failure to allege any specific, evidence-based damages. 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 in fiscal 2015 (the “Criminal Intrusion”). The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and the Company filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, the Company filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. To date, no hearing date has been set for the 8th Circuit argument. On June 30, 2015, the Company received a letter from the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OCR”) seeking documents and information regarding the Company’s HIPAA breach notification and reporting from 2009 to the present. The letter indicates that the OCR Midwest Region is doing a compliance review of the Company’s alleged failure to report small breaches of protected health information related to its pharmacy operations (e.g., any incident involving less than 500 individuals). On September 4, 2015, the Company submitted its response to OCR’s letter. While the Company does not believe that a loss is probable by reason of the compliance review, the Company believes that a loss is reasonably possible; however, at this time the Company cannot estimate a range of possible losses because the OCR's review is at the early stages and the Company does not know if OCR will find a violation(s) and, if so, what violation(s) and whether OCR will proceed with corrective action, issuance of penalties or monetary settlement. The potential penalties related to the issues being investigated are up to $50 thousand per violation (which can be counted per day) with a $1.5 per calendar year maximum for multiple violations of a single provision (with the potential for finding violations of multiple provisions each with a separate $1.5 per calendar year maximum); however, as noted above, any actual penalties will be determined only after consideration by OCR of various factors, including the nature of any violation, remedial actions taken by the Company and other factors determined relevant by OCR. 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, Criminal Intrusion and OCR matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a material loss is remote. It is possible, although management believes that the likelihood 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.

NOTE 12—COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

Potential Separation of Save-A-Lot Business

On October 16, 2016, the Company, Moran Foods, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, Smith Acquisition Corp. (the “Purchaser”), an affiliate of Onex Partners Manager LP, and Smith Merger Sub Corp., a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of the Purchaser, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which the Purchaser will acquire the Save-A-Lot business of the Company. See Note 15—Subsequent Events.

Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities

The Company has outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of September 10, 2016. These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of wholesale 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 15 years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately nine years. For each guarantee issued, if the wholesale customer or other third party 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 wholesale customer.

The Company reviews performance risk related to its guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of September 10, 2016, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $62 and represented $47 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 lease 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, service agreements, 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 New Albertson's Inc. ("NAI") on March 21, 2013, the Company remains contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees issued by SUPERVALU with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was a subsidiary of the Company. As of September 10, 2016, using actuarial estimates as of June 30, 2016, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $138 ($123 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.

Agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and Affiliates

In connection with the sale of NAI, the Company entered into various agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and its affiliates related to on-going operations, including a Transition Services Agreement with each of NAI and Albertson’s LLC (collectively, the “TSA”) and operating and supply agreements. At the time of the sale of NAI, these arrangements had initial terms ranging from 12 months to five years, and are generally subject to renewal upon mutual agreement by the parties thereto and also include termination provisions that can be exercised by each party. On September 6, 2016, NAI and Albertson’s LLC each notified the Company that it was again exercising its right to renew the term of their respective Transition Services Agreement for an additional year. Pursuant to this notice, each TSA will now expire on September 21, 2018 unless renewed again by notice given no later than September 21, 2017. In addition, the Company operates a distribution center owned by NAI.

On April 16, 2015, the Company entered into a letter agreement pursuant to which the Company is providing services to NAI and Albertson’s LLC as needed to transition and wind down the TSA. In exchange for these transition and wind down services, the Company is entitled to receive eight payments of approximately $6 every six months for aggregate fees of $50. These payments are separate from and incremental to the fixed and variable fees the Company receives under the TSA. The Company estimates that the complete transition and wind down of the TSA could take approximately two to three more years.

On May 28, 2015, the Company entered into a letter agreement with NAI and Albertson's LLC pursuant to which the Company received certain additional rights and benefits, and the Company and NAI and Albertson's LLC (and certain of their affiliates, including Safeway, with respect to provisions of the letter agreement applicable to them) agreed to resolve several issues. Among other matters resolved, NAI, Albertson's LLC and AB Acquisition agreed to no longer challenge, and waive all rights relating to, the Company's filing with the IRS in fiscal 2015 for a change in accounting method for NAI and its subsidiaries pursuant to the tangible property repair regulations. In consideration for the granting of the additional rights and benefits to the Company and the resolution of the various matters under the letter agreement, the Company paid $35 to AB Acquisition, the parent entity of NAI and Albertson's LLC.

Haggen

The Company entered into a transition services agreement with Haggen in December 2014 (the “Haggen TSA”) to provide certain services to 164 stores owned and being acquired by Haggen in five states. The Company also entered into a supply agreement with Haggen to supply goods and products to Haggen stores in Washington and Oregon. On September 8, 2015, Haggen filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Through the bankruptcy process, Haggen has now closed or sold all 164 stores. The transition and wind down of the Haggen TSA and supply agreement occurred in the second quarter of fiscal 2017, with the Company now providing limited services in connection with the wind down of the Haggen estate. The Company filed approximately $2 of administrative 503(b)(9) priority claims and approximately $8 of unsecured claims with the bankruptcy court, including a number of contingent claims. On September 30, 2016, the bankruptcy court approved settlement agreements resolving the Company’s unsecured claims against Haggen. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreements, the Company received approximately $3 from Haggen on October 11, 2016, and it anticipates Haggen will make further payments of approximately $2 on account of the Company’s claims. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Haggen has agreed not to pursue claw-backs of any transfers made to the Company. The Company could be exposed to claims from third parties from which the Company sourced products, services, licenses and similar benefits on behalf of Haggen. The Company has reserved for probable losses related to a portion of these claims and receivables. It is reasonably possible that the Company could experience losses in excess of the amount of such reserves; however, at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of such excess losses because of the factual and legal issues related to whether the Company would have liability for any such third-party claims, if such third-party claims were asserted against the Company.

Information Technology Intrusions

Computer Network Intrusions – In fiscal 2015, the Company announced it had experienced two 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. 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 new or different time frames, locations, at-risk data, and/or other facts will be identified in the future.

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, 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 and, although the Company’s network has previously been found to be compliant with applicable data security standards, the forensic investigator working on behalf of the payment card brands has concluded that the Company was not in compliance at the time of the intrusions and that the alleged non-compliance caused at least some portion of the compromise of payment card data that allegedly occurred during the intrusions. On August 1, 2016, MasterCard provided notice of its assessment of non-ordinary course expenses and incremental counterfeit fraud losses allegedly incurred by them or their issuers as a result of the criminal intrusions. On September 1, 2016, the Company submitted an appeal of the assessment to MasterCard and, while the Company continues to believe that the assessment is without merit, the Company believes that a settlement with MasterCard is probable. The Company expects the other payment card brands to also 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. The Company believes these payment card brands will also 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 and 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 accrued for settlement of the MasterCard assessment and any amount that may be paid for other payment card brand claims that might be asserted will be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. In addition, one payment card brand has placed the Company in a “probationary status” for a period of two years following the Company's re-validation as PCI-DSS compliant, during which time the Company's failure to comply with the probationary requirements set forth by the payment card brand could result in the imposition of further conditions, including but not limited to disqualification from the payment system. The Company does not anticipate material costs to comply with the probationary requirements.

On October 23, 2015, the Company received a letter from a multistate group of Attorneys General seeking information regarding the intrusions. The Company is cooperating with the request. To date, no claims have been asserted against the Company related to this inquiry. If any claims are asserted, the Company expects to dispute those claims.

As discussed in more detail below in this Note 12 under Legal Proceedings, four class action complaints related to the intrusions have been filed against the Company and consolidated into one action and are currently pending. As indicated below, 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 and Expenses – The Company had $50 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 at the time of the intrusions, 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. The Company now maintains $90 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of approximately $3, in each case subject to certain sublimits.

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 September 10, 2016, the Company had approximately $330 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations.

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, the likelihood 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 is remote.

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 that 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 that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in 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. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded 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 and potentially other distribution centers. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs’ request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of retailers in the Midwest and the Company filed its response on May 6, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only one of which is suing the Company (the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class). On September 21, 2016, the Company filed a petition with the 8th Circuit seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision. The District Court has ordered a mandatory settlement conference for February 14-15, 2017. The Company continues to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the mandatory settlement conference, it is reasonably possible that the parties will engage in settlement negotiations as required by the District Court, which may result in a settlement of the matter. However, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the procedural status of the case, the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ failure to allege any specific, evidence-based damages.

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 in fiscal 2015 (the “Criminal Intrusion”). The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and the Company filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, the Company filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. To date, no hearing date has been set for the 8th Circuit argument.

On June 30, 2015, the Company received a letter from the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OCR”) seeking documents and information regarding the Company’s HIPAA breach notification and reporting from 2009 to the present. The letter indicates that the OCR Midwest Region is doing a compliance review of the Company’s alleged failure to report small breaches of protected health information related to its pharmacy operations (e.g., any incident involving less than 500 individuals). On September 4, 2015, the Company submitted its response to OCR’s letter. While the Company does not believe that a loss is probable by reason of the compliance review, the Company believes that a loss is reasonably possible; however, at this time the Company cannot estimate a range of possible losses because the OCR's review is at the early stages and the Company does not know if OCR will find a violation(s) and, if so, what violation(s) and whether OCR will proceed with corrective action, issuance of penalties or monetary settlement. The potential penalties related to the issues being investigated are up to $50 thousand per violation (which can be counted per day) with a $1.5 per calendar year maximum for multiple violations of a single provision (with the potential for finding violations of multiple provisions each with a separate $1.5 per calendar year maximum); however, as noted above, any actual penalties will be determined only after consideration by OCR of various factors, including the nature of any violation, remedial actions taken by the Company and other factors determined relevant by OCR.

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, Criminal Intrusion and OCR matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a material loss is remote. It is possible, although management believes that the likelihood 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.