Note 8

Commitments and Contingencies

SpartanNash subleases property at certain locations and received rental income of $5.0 million, $2.2 million, and $1.9 million in the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, the 39 week period ended December 28, 2013, and fiscal year ended March 30, 2013, respectively. In the event of the customer’s default, SpartanNash would be responsible for fulfilling these lease obligations. The future payment obligations under these leases are disclosed in Note 9.

Unions represent approximately 8% of SpartanNash’s associates. These associates are covered by collective bargaining agreements. The facilities covered by collective bargaining agreements, the unions representing the covered associates and the expiration dates for each existing collective bargaining agreement are provided in the following table:

Distribution Center Locations	Union Locals	Expiration dates
Lima, Ohio	IBT 908	January, 2016
Bellefontaine, Ohio General Merchandise Service Division	IBT 908	February, 2016
Bellefontaine, Ohio GTL Truck Lines Inc.	IBT 908	February, 2017
Westville, Indiana	IBT 135	May 2016
Grand Rapids, Michigan	IBT 406	October, 2015
Norfolk, Virginia	IBT 822	April, 2016
Columbus, Ohio	IBT 528	September, 2016

We are engaged from time-to-time in routine legal proceedings incidental to our business. We do not believe that these routine legal proceedings, taken as a whole, will have a material impact on our business or financial condition. While the ultimate effect of such actions cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that their outcome will not result in an adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, operating results or liquidity of SpartanNash.

On or about July 24, 2013, a putative class action complaint (the “State Court Action”) was filed in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin (the “State Court”), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch Company in connection with the pending merger with Spartan Stores, Inc. The State Court Action was styled Greenblatt v. Nash-Finch Co. et al., Case No. 27-cv-13-13710. That complaint was amended on August 28, 2013, after Spartan Stores filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission containing a preliminary version of the joint proxy statement/prospectus. On September 9, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the State Court Action. On or about September 19, 2013, a second putative class action complaint (the “Federal Court Action” and, together with the State Court Action, the “Putative Class Actions”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the “Federal Court”) by a stockholder of Nash-Finch. The Federal Court Action was styled Benson v. Covington et al., Case No. 0:13-cv-02574.

The Putative Class Actions alleged that the directors of Nash-Finch breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving a merger that provided for inadequate consideration under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of interest; that the merger agreement included allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions; and that Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores allegedly aided and abetted the directors in breaching their duties to Nash-Finch’s stockholders. Both Putative Class Actions also alleged that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus was false and misleading due to the omission of a variety of allegedly material information. The complaint in the Federal Court Action also asserted additional claims individually on behalf of the plaintiff under the federal securities laws. The Putative Class Actions sought, on behalf of their putative classes, various remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, damages, and costs and disbursements relating to the lawsuit.

The Company believed that these lawsuits were without merit; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores agreed, as part of settlement discussions, to make certain supplemental disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus requested by the Putative Class Actions in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus. On October 30, 2013, the defendants entered into the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlined the terms of the parties’ agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Putative Class Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores acknowledged that the supplemental disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus were made in response to the Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplated that the parties would use their best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the State Court for approval a stipulation of settlement within thirty days after the later of the date that the Merger was consummated or the date that plaintiffs and their counsel have confirmed the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement, and that upon execution of such stipulation, and as a condition to final approval of the settlement, the plaintiff in the Federal Action would withdraw the claims in and cause to be dismissed the Federal Action, with any individual claims being dismissed with prejudice. The Memorandum of Understanding provided that Nash-Finch would pay, on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses, subject to approval by the State Court, in an amount not to exceed $550,000. On February 11, 2014, the parties executed the Stipulation and Agreement Compromise, Settlement and Release (the “Stipulation of Settlement.”) to resolve, discharge and settle the Putative Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement was subject to customary conditions, including approval by the State Court, which would consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. On February 18, 2014, the Federal Court entered a final order dismissing the Federal Court Action with prejudice. On February 28, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the plaintiffs in the State Court Action filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, conditional certification of class, and approval of notice to be furnished to the class. On March 7, 2014, the State Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement Stipulation, subject to a hearing, scheduled on May 20, 2014. At the hearing on May 20, 2014, the Settlement Stipulation was approved. On July 21, 2014, the appeals period expired and the matter is now closed.

SpartanNash contributes to the Central States multi-employer pension plan based on obligations arising from its collective bargaining agreements in Bellefontaine, Ohio, Lima, Ohio, and Grand Rapids, Michigan covering its distribution center union associates. This plan provides retirement benefits to participants based on their service to contributing employers. The benefits are paid from assets held in trust for that purpose. Trustees are appointed by contributing employers and unions; however, SpartanNash is not a trustee. The trustees typically are responsible for determining the level of benefits to be provided to participants, as well as for such matters as the investment of the assets and the administration of the plan. SpartanNash currently contributes to the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund under the terms outlined in the “Primary Schedule” of Central States’ Rehabilitation Plan. This schedule requires varying increases in employer contributions over the previous year’s contribution. Increases are set within the collective bargaining agreement and vary by location.

Based on the most recent information available to SpartanNash, management believes that the present value of actuarial accrued liabilities in this multi-employer plan significantly exceeds the value of the assets held in trust to pay benefits. Because SpartanNash is one of a number of employers contributing to this plan, it is difficult to ascertain what the exact amount of the underfunding would be, although management anticipates that SpartanNash’s contributions to this plan will increase each year. Management is not aware of any significant change in funding levels since January 3, 2015. To reduce this underfunding, management expects meaningful increases in expense as a result of required incremental multi-employer pension plan contributions in future years. Any adjustment for withdrawal liability will be recorded when it is probable that a liability exists and can be reasonably determined.