Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements	6 Months Ended
Sep. 10, 2011
Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	NOTE 10 — COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS Guarantees The Company has guaranteed certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of September 10, 2011. 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 18 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 customers based on internal measures of credit performance. As of September 10, 2011, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all of these guarantees was $111 and represented $82 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. In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale. These contracts typically include volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of September 10, 2011, the Company had $769 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations primarily related to supply contracts. The Company is a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which the Company may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters, which indemnities may be secured by operation of law or otherwise, in the ordinary course of business. These contracts primarily relate to the Company’s commercial contracts, 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. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, none of which, in management’s opinion, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As previously disclosed in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 18, 2011, 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. Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to the Company, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As previously disclosed in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 18, 2011, 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. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits. Separately from these civil lawsuits, on September 14, 2009, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a subpoena to the Company requesting documents related to the C&S transaction as part of the FTC’s investigation into whether the Company and C&S engaged in unfair methods of competition. The Company cooperated with the FTC. On March 18, 2011, the FTC notified the Company that it had determined that no additional action was warranted by the FTC and that it had closed its investigation. As previously disclosed in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 18, 2011, on January 7, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Milwaukee Field Office in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims for payment under the Medicaid program. The subpoena requests retail pharmacy claims data for “dual eligible” customers (i.e., customers with both Medicaid and private insurance coverage), information concerning the Company’s retail pharmacy claims processing systems, copies of pharmacy payor contracts and other documents and records. On February 11, 2011, a complaint was filed by the United States Government and the States of California and Minnesota to intervene in a previously sealed qui tam lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that the Company improperly billed Medicaid claims with dual eligibility by charging Medicaid more than the co-pay allowed by the primary payer in seven states. Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to the Company, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is also involved in routine legal proceedings incidental to its operations. Some of these routine proceedings involve class allegations, many of which are ultimately dismissed. Management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of these legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The statements above reflect management’s current expectations based on the information presently available to the Company, however, 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. In addition, 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 and believes recorded reserves are adequate. 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.

NOTE 10 — COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

Guarantees

The Company has guaranteed certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of September 10, 2011. 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 18 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 customers based on internal measures of credit performance. As of September 10, 2011, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all of these guarantees was $111 and represented $82 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.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale. These contracts typically include volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of September 10, 2011, the Company had $769 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations primarily related to supply contracts.

The Company is a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which the Company may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters, which indemnities may be secured by operation of law or otherwise, in the ordinary course of business. These contracts primarily relate to the Company’s commercial contracts, 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.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, none of which, in management’s opinion, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

As previously disclosed in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 18, 2011, 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. Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to the Company, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

As previously disclosed in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 18, 2011, 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. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits. Separately from these civil lawsuits, on September 14, 2009, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a subpoena to the Company requesting documents related to the C&S transaction as part of the FTC’s investigation into whether the Company and C&S engaged in unfair methods of competition. The Company cooperated with the FTC. On March 18, 2011, the FTC notified the Company that it had determined that no additional action was warranted by the FTC and that it had closed its investigation.

As previously disclosed in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 18, 2011, on January 7, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Milwaukee Field Office in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims for payment under the Medicaid program. The subpoena requests retail pharmacy claims data for “dual eligible” customers (i.e., customers with both Medicaid and private insurance coverage), information concerning the Company’s retail pharmacy claims processing systems, copies of pharmacy payor contracts and other documents and records. On February 11, 2011, a complaint was filed by the United States Government and the States of California and Minnesota to intervene in a previously sealed qui tam lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that the Company improperly billed Medicaid claims with dual eligibility by charging Medicaid more than the co-pay allowed by the primary payer in seven states. Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to the Company, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is also involved in routine legal proceedings incidental to its operations. Some of these routine proceedings involve class allegations, many of which are ultimately dismissed. Management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of these legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The statements above reflect management’s current expectations based on the information presently available to the Company, however, 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. In addition, 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 and believes recorded reserves are adequate. 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.