Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Sep. 28, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

10. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Obligations

The Company had outstanding contracts and purchase orders for capital projects and services totaling $34.9 million at September 28, 2019. Amounts due under these contracts were not included on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of September 28, 2019.

Guarantees

The Company participates in a purchasing alliance that was formed to obtain better pricing, to expand product options, to reduce internal costs, and to achieve greater inventory turnover. The Company has entered into agreements to guarantee a portion of the trade payables for such purchasing alliance to their various suppliers as an inducement for these suppliers to extend additional trade credit to the purchasing alliance. In the event of default by the purchasing alliance of its trade payables obligations, these suppliers may proceed directly against the Company to collect their trade payables. The terms of these guarantees have expiration dates throughout 2019. As of September 28, 2019, the undiscounted maximum amount of potential payments covered by these guarantees totaled $4.9 million. The Company believes that the likelihood of payment under these guarantees is remote and that any fair value attributable to these guarantees is immaterial; therefore, no liability has been recorded for these obligations in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets.

The Company from time to time enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require it to indemnify various parties against claims from third parties. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) certain real estate leases under which subsidiaries of the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities and other claims arising from their use of the applicable premises; (ii) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors, and employees under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationship; and (iii) customer agreements under which the Company may be required to indemnify customers for certain claims brought against them with respect to the supplied products. Generally, a maximum obligation under these contracts is not explicitly stated. Because the obligated amounts associated with these types of agreements are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been required to make payments under these obligations and, therefore, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets.

Reinhart Transaction Commitments

The Company has several outstanding commitments that will be due upon the closing of the Reinhart Transaction.  These commitments, totaling $61.7 million, include $26.0 million related to the Notes due 2027.  The remainder of the commitments relate to the remaining expected future financing of the Reinhart Transaction and include $4.9 million for additional borrowings under the ABL Facility and, if issued, $19.8 million for the offering of shares of the Company’s stock, as well as $11.0 million related to advisory fees for the acquisition.

Litigation

The Company is engaged in various legal proceedings that have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. The likelihood of loss arising from these legal proceedings, based on definitions within contingency accounting literature, ranges from remote to reasonably possible to probable. When losses are probable and reasonably estimable, they have been accrued. Based on estimates of the range of potential losses associated with these matters, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect upon the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. However, the final results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and, if the Company failed to prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses were to exceed the Company’s current estimates of the range of potential losses, the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations could be materially adversely affected in future periods.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Lawsuit. In March 2009, the Baltimore Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Field Office served the Company with company-wide (excluding, however, our Vistar and Roma Foodservice operations) subpoenas relating to alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), seeking certain information from January 1, 2004 to a specified date in the first fiscal quarter of 2009. In August 2009, the EEOC moved to enforce the subpoenas in federal court in Maryland, and the Company opposed the motion. In February 2010, the court ruled that the subpoena related to the Equal Pay Act investigation was enforceable company-wide but on a narrower scope of data than the original

subpoena sought (the court ruled that the subpoena was applicable to the transportation, logistics, and warehouse functions of the Company’s broadline distribution centers only and not to the Company’s PFG Customized distribution centers). The Company cooperated with the EEOC on the production of information. In September 2011, the EEOC notified the Company that the EEOC was terminating the investigation into alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act. In determinations issued in September 2012 by the EEOC with respect to the charges on which the EEOC had based its company-wide investigation, the EEOC concluded that the Company engaged in a pattern of denying hiring and promotion to a class of female applicants and employees into certain positions within the transportation, logistics, and warehouse functions within the Company’s broadline division in violation of Title VII. In June 2013, the EEOC filed suit in federal court in Baltimore against the Company. The litigation concerns two issues: (1) whether the Company unlawfully engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of failing to hire female applicants into operations positions; and (2) whether the Company unlawfully failed to promote one of the three individuals who filed charges with the EEOC because of her gender. The EEOC seeks the following relief in the lawsuit: (1) to permanently enjoin the Company from denying employment to female applicants because of their sex and denying promotions to female employees because of their sex; (2) a court order mandating that the Company institute and carry out policies, procedures, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females; (3) back pay with prejudgment interest and compensatory damages for a former female employee and an alleged class of aggrieved female applicants; (4) punitive damages; and (5) costs. The court bifurcated the litigation into two phases. In the first phase, the jury will decide whether the Company engaged in a gender-based pattern and practice of discrimination and the individual claims of one former employee. If the EEOC prevails on all counts in the first phase, no monetary relief would be awarded, except possibly for the single individual’s claims, which would be immaterial. The remaining individual claims would then be tried in the second phase. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the number of individual trials that could occur in the second phase of the litigation or the value of those claims. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in the event of an adverse finding in the first and second phases of the litigation.

In May 2018, the EEOC filed motions for sanctions against the Company alleging that we failed to preserve certain paper employment applications and e-mails during 2004 – 2009. In the sanctions motions, the EEOC sought a range of remedies, including but not limited to, a default judgment against the Company, or alternatively, an order barring the Company from filing for summary judgment on the EEOC’s pattern and practice claims. The court denied the EEOC’s motions in June 2019, but reserved ruling on whether the unavailability of certain documents will prejudice the EEOC’s ability to present expert testimony at the trial.

The parties are now in the process of filing cross motions for summary judgment. The summary judgment briefing period is expected to conclude in November 2019. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself.

Tax Liabilities

The Company is subject to customary audits by authorities in the jurisdictions where it conducts business in the United States, which may result in assessments of additional taxes.