XML 35 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Nov. 01, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS | NOTE 15—COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities The Company has outstanding guarantees related to certain lease obligations of various retailers as of November 1, 2025. These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of wholesale customers. The guarantees are generally for the entire terms of the leases with remaining terms that range from less than one year to ten years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately five 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. The Company reviews performance risk related to its guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of November 1, 2025, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $9 million ($8 million on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, as of November 1, 2025, the Company has recorded a de minimis total estimated loss in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. 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 obligations could result in a material liability, the Company is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. The Company has recorded the de minimis fair value of these guarantees and contingent obligations, when applicable, in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other Contractual Commitments In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology systems. These contracts typically include either volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of November 1, 2025, the Company had approximately $455 million of non-cancelable future purchase obligations, most of which will be paid and utilized in the ordinary course within one year. Legal Proceedings The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named in various lawsuits alleging that drug manufacturers, retailers and distributors contributed to the national opioid epidemic. Currently, UNFI, primarily through its subsidiary, Advantage Logistics, is named in approximately 40 suits pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio where thousands of cases have been consolidated as Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”). In accordance with the Stock Purchase Agreement dated January 10, 2013, between New Albertson’s Inc. (“New Albertson’s”) and the Company (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”), the Company believes that New Albertson’s has an obligation to defend and indemnify UNFI in a majority of the cases. New Albertson’s originally agreed to do so under a reservation of rights, however, New Albertson’s is disputing its obligation to do so. In one of the MDL cases, MDL No. 2804 filed by The Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, all defendants were ordered to Answer the Complaint, which UNFI did on July 26, 2019. To date, no discovery has been conducted against UNFI in any of the actions. On October 7, 2022, the MDL Court issued an order directing the Company and numerous other non-litigating defendants to submit by November 1, 2022, a list of opioid cases where the Company is named and opioid dispensing and distribution data. The Company produced the data in compliance with the order. On March 8, 2023, the Company received a subpoena from the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office seeking records related to the distribution and dispensing of opioids. On May 19, 2023, the Company provided an initial production in response to the subpoena and is waiting for further direction from the Maryland Attorney General on additional documents requested. At an April 24, 2024 status conference, the MDL Court directed that the plaintiffs and non-litigating defendants, which includes the Company, determine whether the cases will be dismissed, litigated or mediated. In the first quarter of fiscal 2026, the Company reached an agreement to settle these cases for $23.4 million and is in the process of negotiating the terms of the settlement agreement. The Company has recorded a liability related to this agreement within Accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. On January 21, 2021, various health plans filed a complaint in Minnesota state court against the Company, Albertson’s Companies, LLC (“Albertson’s”) and Safeway, Inc. alleging the defendants committed fraud by improperly reporting inflated prices for prescription drugs for members of health plans. The Plaintiffs assert six causes of action against the defendants: common law fraud, fraudulent nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and violation of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. The plaintiffs allege that between 2006 and 2016, Supervalu overcharged the health plans by not providing the health plans, as part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers purchasing prescription medication who requested that Supervalu match competitor prices. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. Similar to the above case, for the majority of the relevant period Supervalu and Albertson’s operated as a combined company. In March 2013, Supervalu divested Albertson’s and pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement, Albertson’s is responsible for any claims regarding its pharmacies. On February 19, 2021, Albertson’s and Safeway removed the case to Minnesota Federal District Court, and on March 22, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand to state court. On February 26, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The hearing on the remand motion and motions to dismiss occurred on May 20, 2021. On September 21, 2021, the Federal District Court remanded the case to Minnesota state court and did not rule on the motion to dismiss, which was refiled in state court. On February 1, 2022, the state court denied the motion to dismiss. The trial date is set for February 18, 2027. The Company believes these claims are without merit and is vigorously defending this matter. UNFI is currently subject to a qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”). In United States ex rel. Schutte and Yarberry v. Supervalu, New Albertson’s, Inc., et al, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the relators allege that defendants overcharged government healthcare programs by not providing the government, as a part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers purchasing prescription medication who requested that defendants match competitor prices. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on November 30, 2015. The government previously investigated the relators’ allegations and declined to intervene. Violations of the FCA are subject to treble damages and penalties of up to a specified dollar amount per false claim. The relators elected to pursue the case on their own and have alleged FCA damages against Supervalu and New Albertson’s in excess of $100 million, not including trebling and statutory penalties. For the majority of the relevant period Supervalu and New Albertson’s operated as a combined company. In March 2013, Supervalu divested New Albertson’s (and related assets) pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement. Based on the claims that are currently pending and the Stock Purchase Agreement, Supervalu’s share of a potential award (at the currently claimed value by the relators) would be approximately $24 million, not including trebling and statutory penalties. Both sides moved for summary judgment. On August 5, 2019, the Court granted one of the relators’ summary judgment motions finding that the defendants’ lower matched prices are the usual and customary prices and that Medicare Part D and Medicaid were entitled to those prices. On July 2, 2020, the Court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and denied the relators’ motion, dismissing the case. On July 9, 2020, the relators filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 12, 2021, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor. On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed and vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit for further proceedings. On July 27, 2023, the Seventh Circuit vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case to the District Court. On August 22, 2023, the District Court set the trial date for April 29, 2024. On October 11, 2023, each of the Company and the relators filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s August 5, 2019 partial grant of summary judgment to the relators and to continue the trial date. On February 27, 2024, the Court granted the defendants’ motion for a trial date continuance and vacated the April 29, 2024 trial date. On April 26, 2024, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to reconsider the partial grant of summary judgment. On May 20, 2024, the District Court heard oral argument on the pending motions for summary judgment and on September 30, 2024, the Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on scienter and granted relators’ motion for summary judgment on materiality. On March 4, 2025, after a three-week jury trial, the jury found in favor of the Company determining that the Company has no liability. On April 1, 2025, the relators filed a motion asking the District Court to alter or amend the judgment to enter judgment for relators on penalties and a new trial on damages. The Company filed its response in opposition to the motion on April 29, 2025. On October 31, 2025, the Court denied the relators’ motions. On November 26, 2025, the relators filed a notice of appeal. The Company, J. Alexander Miller Douglas, John Howard and Chris Testa are named in a putative securities class action that was originally filed on March 29, 2023. In Dan Sills, et al. v. United Natural Foods, Inc., et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts about UNFI’s business, operations and prospects. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2023, and on September 13, 2024, the court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the motion. On October 28, 2024, the Company answered the complaint denying the allegations. On March 7, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the Company filed its response on June 13, 2025. The parties are waiting for the court to schedule a hearing or rule on the motion for class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. The Company is named in a putative class action lawsuit that was filed on November 3, 2024. The case is captioned NYSM Organics LLC v. United Natural Foods, Inc., and is pending in the Rhode Island Superior Court. In the Amended Complaint, which was filed on December 30, 2024, the plaintiff alleges that the Company took prompt-pay discounts improperly. The Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. In an order dated June 5, 2025, the Court dismissed the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act claim. The Company filed its answer to the Amended Complaint on June 16, 2025. From time to time, the Company receives notice of claims or potential claims or becomes involved in litigation, alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration, or other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business, including investigations and claims regarding employment law, including wage and hour (including class actions); pension plans; labor union disputes, including unfair labor practices, such as claims for back-pay in the context of labor contract negotiations and other matters; supplier, customer and service provider contract terms and claims, including matters related to supplier or customer insolvency or general inability to pay obligations as they become due; product liability claims, including those where the supplier may be insolvent and customers or consumers are seeking recovery against the Company; real estate and environmental matters, including claims in connection with its ownership and lease of a substantial amount of real property, both retail and warehouse properties; and antitrust. Additionally, costs could result from claims from customers or suppliers related to the Cybersecurity Incident. Other than as described above, there are no pending material legal proceedings to which the Company is a party or to which its property is subject. 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. Management regularly monitors the Company’s exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change its predictions with respect to outcomes and estimates with respect to related costs and exposures. Management has made provisions where it believes the loss contingency is probable and can be reasonably estimated. As of November 1, 2025, no material accrued obligations, individually or in the aggregate, have been recorded for these legal proceedings. Although management believes it has made appropriate assessments of potential and contingent loss in each of these cases based on current facts and circumstances, and application of prevailing legal principles, there can be no assurance that material differences in actual outcomes from management’s current assessments, costs and exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or material changes in such predictions or estimates will not occur. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration