COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters The Company is involved in litigation, including class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is also subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and reviews by government authorities and regulatory agencies. While claims in these matters may at times involve substantial monetary demands, except as otherwise disclosed herein the Company does not believe that contingent liabilities related to any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. However, in the future we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of these matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. In addition to the foregoing, State of California et. al. ex. rel. David Sherwin v. Office Depot was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, and unsealed on October 16, 2012. On January 29, 2014, the case, which had been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was remanded back to the Superior Court. The lawsuit asserts a variety of claims, including claims under the California False Claims Act, based on allegations regarding certain pricing practices under now expired agreements that were in place between 2001 and January 2011, pursuant to which governmental agencies purchased office supplies from us. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and other relief and, to the extent that liability is found under the California False Claims Act, the Company could also be subject to the trebling of damages and statutory penalties. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to one claim asserted by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit. No accrual has been made with respect to the remaining claims as the Company has not determined that losses from such claims are both probable and reasonably estimable. An estimate of the range of reasonably possible losses associated with such claims cannot be made at this time because whether plaintiffs recover such damages and the amount of such recovery may be significantly impacted by court rulings on anticipated motions and other prospective events in the litigation. A non-binding, voluntary mediation is scheduled for the second quarter of 2014, and a trial is currently scheduled for July 2015. The Company anticipates that the Plaintiffs’ settlement demands in the mediation will include monetary compensation at levels that would, if paid, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. If the Company determines to pursue settlement, it may also determine to accrue an additional reserve, including at an amount that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. If the case is not settled, an adverse judgment at trial could result in significant monetary liability beyond the amounts accrued for to date and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. On February 20, 2013, Office Depot and OfficeMax announced a definitive agreement under which the companies would combine in an all-stock merger-of-equals transaction. Between February 25, 2013 and March 29, 2013, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported OfficeMax shareholders in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in DuPage County, Illinois (“Court”) challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies and individual members of OfficeMax’s Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. The lawsuits were consolidated as Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated et. al. Subsequently, two similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Like the state court lawsuits, the federal actions alleged that the disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus was inadequate. On June 25, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) regarding settlement of the litigation. In consideration for the settlement and release, Office Depot and OfficeMax made certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The MOU contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval. A Stipulation of Settlement was entered into on November 6, 2013, and filed with the Court on November 7, 2013. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 11, 2013, and final settlement approval was entered by the Court on January 21, 2014. The amount paid in this settlement was not material to the Company’s financial statements. In addition to the foregoing, Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers as exempt employees, willfully failed to pay overtime compensation, and seeks unpaid wages, punitive damages, and penalties for record keeping violations. The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in the matter. OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Further, Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Office Depot’s use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to provide its assistant managers with a clear and mutual understanding that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs similarly seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes in this case as well that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in these matters. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits. OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale. The Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company’s business. Commitments In accordance with an amended and restated joint venture agreement, the minority owner of Grupo OfficeMax can elect to require the Company to purchase the minority owner’s 49% interest in the joint venture if certain earnings targets are achieved. During the first quarter of 2014, the Grupo OfficeMax earnings targets were achieved, but had no impact on the noncontrolling interest value at March 29, 2014. Refer to Note 2 for information about the expected sale of the Company’s interest in Grupo OfficeMax.

NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

The Company is involved in litigation, including class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is also subject to lawsuits, investigations, audits and reviews by government authorities and regulatory agencies. While claims in these matters may at times involve substantial monetary demands, except as otherwise disclosed herein the Company does not believe that contingent liabilities related to any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. However, in the future we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of these matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows.

In addition to the foregoing, State of California et. al. ex. rel. David Sherwin v. Office Depot was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, and unsealed on October 16, 2012. On January 29, 2014, the case, which had been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was remanded back to the Superior Court. The lawsuit asserts a variety of claims, including claims under the California False Claims Act, based on allegations regarding certain pricing practices under now expired agreements that were in place between 2001 and January 2011, pursuant to which governmental agencies purchased office supplies from us. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and other relief and, to the extent that liability is found under the California False Claims Act, the Company could also be subject to the trebling of damages and statutory penalties. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to one claim asserted by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit. No accrual has been made with respect to the remaining claims as the Company has not determined that losses from such claims are both probable and reasonably estimable. An estimate of the range of reasonably possible losses associated with such claims cannot be made at this time because whether plaintiffs recover such damages and the amount of such recovery may be significantly impacted by court rulings on anticipated motions and other prospective events in the litigation. A non-binding, voluntary mediation is scheduled for the second quarter of 2014, and a trial is currently scheduled for July 2015. The Company anticipates that the Plaintiffs’ settlement demands in the mediation will include monetary compensation at levels that would, if paid, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. If the Company determines to pursue settlement, it may also determine to accrue an additional reserve, including at an amount that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. If the case is not settled, an adverse judgment at trial could result in significant monetary liability beyond the amounts accrued for to date and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.

On February 20, 2013, Office Depot and OfficeMax announced a definitive agreement under which the companies would combine in an all-stock merger-of-equals transaction. Between February 25, 2013 and March 29, 2013, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported OfficeMax shareholders in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in DuPage County, Illinois (“Court”) challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies and individual members of OfficeMax’s Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. The lawsuits were consolidated as Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated et. al. Subsequently, two similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Like the state court lawsuits, the federal actions alleged that the disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus was inadequate. On June 25, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) regarding settlement of the litigation. In consideration for the settlement and release, Office Depot and OfficeMax made certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The MOU contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval. A Stipulation of Settlement was entered into on November 6, 2013, and filed with the Court on November 7, 2013. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 11, 2013, and final settlement approval was entered by the Court on January 21, 2014. The amount paid in this settlement was not material to the Company’s financial statements.

In addition to the foregoing, Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers as exempt employees, willfully failed to pay overtime compensation, and seeks unpaid wages, punitive damages, and penalties for record keeping violations. The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in the matter. OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. Further, Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Office Depot’s use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to provide its assistant managers with a clear and mutual understanding that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs similarly seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes in this case as well that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in these matters. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits.

OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale. The Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company’s business.

Commitments

In accordance with an amended and restated joint venture agreement, the minority owner of Grupo OfficeMax can elect to require the Company to purchase the minority owner’s 49% interest in the joint venture if certain earnings targets are achieved. During the first quarter of 2014, the Grupo OfficeMax earnings targets were achieved, but had no impact on the noncontrolling interest value at March 29, 2014. Refer to Note 2 for information about the expected sale of the Company’s interest in Grupo OfficeMax.