COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	12 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	Guarantees The Company has outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of February 28, 2015. 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 15 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 customer obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of February 28, 2015, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $69 and represented $54 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 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. 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, the TSA (as defined below), 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 obligation could result in a material liability, the Company is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. Following the sale of NAI, the Company remains contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees issued by SUPERVALU INC. with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was a subsidiary of the Company. As of February 28, 2015, using actuarial estimates as of December 31, 2014, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $217 ($195 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie the Company’s commitments, the Company believes that such contingent liabilities will continue to decline. Subsequent to the sale of NAI, NAI collateralized most of these obligations with letters of credit and surety bonds to numerous states. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized most of the self-insurance obligations for which the Company remains contingently liable, the Company believes that 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 Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees. Information Technology Intrusions Computer Network Intrusions - The Company announced during fiscal 2015 it had experienced separate criminal intrusions into the portion of its computer network that processes payment card transactions for some of its owned and franchised retail stores, including some of its associated stand-alone liquor stores. An investigation of those intrusions supported by third-party data forensics experts is ongoing. The Company believes these criminal intrusions may have resulted in the collection of account numbers, and in some cases also the expiration date, other numerical information and/or the cardholder’s name. Upon recognition of each intrusion, the Company took immediate steps to secure the affected part of its network, and the Company believes that it has eradicated the malware used in each intrusion. The Company notified the major payment card brands and federal law enforcement authorities and is cooperating in their efforts to investigate these intrusions, identify those responsible for the intrusions and determine whether any cardholder data was stolen by the intruder(s). The Company also notified several state Attorneys General of the intrusions. As to both intrusions, given the continuing nature of the investigation, it is possible that it will be determined that information was stolen from the Company during one or both of these intrusions or that time frames, locations, at-risk data, and/or other facts will be identified in the future. Some stores owned and operated by Albertson’s LLC and NAI experienced related criminal intrusions. The Company provides information technology services to these Albertson’s LLC and NAI stores pursuant to the TSA, and the Company has been working together with Albertson’s LLC and NAI to respond to the intrusions into their stores. The Company believes that any losses incurred by Albertson’s LLC or NAI as a result of the intrusions affecting their stores would not be the Company’s responsibility. Investigations and Proceedings - As a result of the criminal intrusions, the payment card brands are conducting investigations into whether the portion of the Company’s network that handles payment card data was compliant with applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and, if not, whether any non-compliance caused any compromise of payment card data that may have occurred during the intrusions. The Company’s network has previously been found to be compliant with those standards; however, the forensic investigator working on behalf of the payment card brands has concluded that the Company was not in compliance at the time of the intrusions and that the alleged non-compliance caused at least some portion of the compromise of payment card data that allegedly occurred during the intrusions. As a result, the Company expects the payment card brands to allege that the Company was not compliant with the applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and that such alleged non-compliance caused the compromise of payment card data during the intrusions. The Company believes the payment card brands will make claims against the Company for non-ordinary course operating expenses and incremental counterfeit fraud losses allegedly incurred by them or their issuers by reason of the intrusions and the Company expects to dispute those claims. While the Company does not believe that a loss is probable by reason of these as yet unasserted claims, the Company believes that a loss in connection with these claims, should they be asserted, is reasonably possible; however, at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because the payment card brands’ investigation is ongoing and the payment card brands have not alleged what payment cards they consider to have been compromised, what data from those cards they consider to have been compromised, or the amount of their and/or their issuers' claimed losses. The Company does not currently believe that the amount, if any, paid on any payment card brand claims that might be asserted would be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. While the Company is not aware of any investigation into the intrusions having been initiated by any regulatory authority, it is possible that regulatory investigations into the intrusions could be initiated in the future and, were that to occur, it is possible that such investigations could result in claims being made against the Company by the regulatory authorities in question. If that were to occur, the Company expects to dispute those claims. As discussed in more detail below in this Note 14 under Legal Proceedings, four class action complaints have been filed against the Company related to the intrusions and are currently pending. As indicated in Note 14, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material loss from the four class actions is remote. It is possible that other similar complaints by consumers, banks or others may be filed against the Company in connection with the intrusions. Insurance Coverage - The Company had $50 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 at the time of the intrusions and the Company now maintains $75 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of approximately $3, in each case subject to certain sublimits, which it believes should mitigate the financial effect of these intrusions, including claims made or that might be made against the Company based on these intrusions. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these intrusions, including any related lawsuits, claims or other proceedings that might be initiated against the Company, will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Expenses - The Company has and expects to incur various costs related to the intrusions, including the cost of conducting the pending investigation, the cost of providing identity protection services to the Company’s customers and legal and other professional expenses. In fiscal 2015, the Company recorded $5 of intrusion related costs and anticipated insurance proceeds of $3. These amounts were recorded within Selling and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Anticipated insurance proceeds recorded for the insurance receivable were based on the Company’s insurance recovery assessment. This assessment included the review of applicable insurance policies, correspondence with the insurance carriers and analysis by legal counsel. Impact on Sales - The Company has not experienced weaker than anticipated sales subsequent to the intrusions. Other Contractual Commitments In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale and purchase and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology commitments. These contracts typically include either volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of February 28, 2015, the Company had approximately $244 of noncancelable future purchase obligations. The Company and AB Acquisition entered into a binding term sheet with the PBGC relating to issues regarding the effect of the sale of NAI on certain SUPERVALU retirement plans. The agreement required that the Company not pay any dividends to its stockholders at any time for a period of up to five years. The Company had also agreed to make $100 in aggregate contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan in excess of the minimum required contributions at or before the end of fiscal years 2015 – 2017 and AB Acquisition had agreed to provide a guarantee to the PBGC for such excess payments. On September 11, 2014, the Company, AB Acquisition and the PBGC amended the term sheet. Pursuant to that amendment, the Company made excess contributions of $47 to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan and the Company is no longer restricted by the term sheet from paying dividends to its stockholders and has fully satisfied its obligations to make excess contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan. While the Company is no longer restricted from paying dividends to its stockholders under the term sheet, the Company has no current intent to resume paying dividends. The payment of future dividends is subject to the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors and the requirements of Delaware law, and will depend on a variety of factors that the Company’s Board of Directors may deem relevant. In addition, as described above in Note 7—Long-Term Debt, the Company is limited in the aggregate amount of dividends that the Company may pay during the term of its Secured Term Loan Facility and would need to meet certain conditions in the Secured Term Loan Facility and the Revolving ABL Credit Facility before paying a dividend. During fiscal 2015, the Company recognized $69 of discrete tax benefits attributable to discontinued operations (see Note 16—Discontinued Operations), which relates to tangible property repair regulations. The Company believes it is entitled to these tax benefits, but is in discussions with NAI and Albertson’s LLC on whether the Company will pay any portion of the related tax refund to NAI and Albertson’s LLC. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business. In the opinion of management, based upon currently-available facts, it is remote that the ultimate outcome of any lawsuits, claims and other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the overall results of the Company’s operations, its cash flows or its financial position. 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 that 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. 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 that 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. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company and (2) affirmed the District Court’s decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company’s Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other distribution centers. On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company’s petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder. The case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings to be determined by the District Court. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain aspects of the 8th Circuit decision. In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week method of pay (“FWW”) in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot’s motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same plaintiffs’ attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the Company’s aggregate obligation, including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs and settlement administration costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014 and final approval on July 30, 2014. Payments to class members began in mid-November 2014 and were completed in February 2015. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 before tax ($3 after tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter. The Company funded $5 into a qualified settlement fund on February 28, 2014. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On December 16, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the cases consolidated as In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation and transferred the cases to the District Court in Minnesota. The Company expects a consolidated complaint will be filed within the next several months. In December 2014, the United States Department of Labor (the “DOL”), in connection with an audit of the SUPERVALU Group Health Plan, the SUPERVALU Retiree Benefit Plan, and the SUPERVALU Group Benefit Plan, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), alleged three violations of its regulations relating to loan transactions between the active and retiree plans, the Company’s treatment of three rebates it had received from insurance carriers and a description of the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act by the Company’s third party administrator in its written materials. In connection with closing out the audit, the Company determined it would make additional contributions and pay interest totaling $19 to the trusts that fund the three aforementioned plans, resulting in a benefit plan charge of $5 before tax in fiscal 2015. No penalties were assessed by the DOL. The payments were made on March 5, 2015. 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. 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. With respect to the IOS, C&S and Criminal Intrusion matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a material loss is remote. 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.

Guarantees

The Company has outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of February 28, 2015. 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 15 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 customer obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of February 28, 2015, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $69 and represented $54 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 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.

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, the TSA (as defined below), 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 obligation could result in a material liability, the Company is not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability.

Following the sale of NAI, the Company remains contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees issued by SUPERVALU INC. with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was a subsidiary of the Company. As of February 28, 2015, using actuarial estimates as of December 31, 2014, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $217 ($195 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie the Company’s commitments, the Company believes that such contingent liabilities will continue to decline. Subsequent to the sale of NAI, NAI collateralized most of these obligations with letters of credit and surety bonds to numerous states. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized most of the self-insurance obligations for which the Company remains contingently liable, the Company believes that 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 Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees.

Information Technology Intrusions

Computer Network Intrusions - The Company announced during fiscal 2015 it had experienced separate criminal intrusions into the portion of its computer network that processes payment card transactions for some of its owned and franchised retail stores, including some of its associated stand-alone liquor stores. An investigation of those intrusions supported by third-party data forensics experts is ongoing. The Company believes these criminal intrusions may have resulted in the collection of account numbers, and in some cases also the expiration date, other numerical information and/or the cardholder’s name. Upon recognition of each intrusion, the Company took immediate steps to secure the affected part of its network, and the Company believes that it has eradicated the malware used in each intrusion. The Company notified the major payment card brands and federal law enforcement authorities and is cooperating in their efforts to investigate these intrusions, identify those responsible for the intrusions and determine whether any cardholder data was stolen by the intruder(s). The Company also notified several state Attorneys General of the intrusions. As to both intrusions, given the continuing nature of the investigation, it is possible that it will be determined that information was stolen from the Company during one or both of these intrusions or that time frames, locations, at-risk data, and/or other facts will be identified in the future.

Some stores owned and operated by Albertson’s LLC and NAI experienced related criminal intrusions. The Company provides information technology services to these Albertson’s LLC and NAI stores pursuant to the TSA, and the Company has been working together with Albertson’s LLC and NAI to respond to the intrusions into their stores. The Company believes that any losses incurred by Albertson’s LLC or NAI as a result of the intrusions affecting their stores would not be the Company’s responsibility.

Investigations and Proceedings - As a result of the criminal intrusions, the payment card brands are conducting investigations into whether the portion of the Company’s network that handles payment card data was compliant with applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and, if not, whether any non-compliance caused any compromise of payment card data that may have occurred during the intrusions. The Company’s network has previously been found to be compliant with those standards; however, the forensic investigator working on behalf of the payment card brands has concluded that the Company was not in compliance at the time of the intrusions and that the alleged non-compliance caused at least some portion of the compromise of payment card data that allegedly occurred during the intrusions. As a result, the Company expects the payment card brands to allege that the Company was not compliant with the applicable data security standards at the time of the intrusions and that such alleged non-compliance caused the compromise of payment card data during the intrusions. The Company believes the payment card brands will make claims against the Company for non-ordinary course operating expenses and incremental counterfeit fraud losses allegedly incurred by them or their issuers by reason of the intrusions and the Company expects to dispute those claims. While the Company does not believe that a loss is probable by reason of these as yet unasserted claims, the Company believes that a loss in connection with these claims, should they be asserted, is reasonably possible; however, at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because the payment card brands’ investigation is ongoing and the payment card brands have not alleged what payment cards they consider to have been compromised, what data from those cards they consider to have been compromised, or the amount of their and/or their issuers' claimed losses. The Company does not currently believe that the amount, if any, paid on any payment card brand claims that might be asserted would be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

While the Company is not aware of any investigation into the intrusions having been initiated by any regulatory authority, it is possible that regulatory investigations into the intrusions could be initiated in the future and, were that to occur, it is possible that such investigations could result in claims being made against the Company by the regulatory authorities in question. If that were to occur, the Company expects to dispute those claims.

As discussed in more detail below in this Note 14 under Legal Proceedings, four class action complaints have been filed against the Company related to the intrusions and are currently pending. As indicated in Note 14, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material loss from the four class actions is remote. It is possible that other similar complaints by consumers, banks or others may be filed against the Company in connection with the intrusions.

Insurance Coverage - The Company had $50 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 at the time of the intrusions and the Company now maintains $75 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of approximately $3, in each case subject to certain sublimits, which it believes should mitigate the financial effect of these intrusions, including claims made or that might be made against the Company based on these intrusions. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these intrusions, including any related lawsuits, claims or other proceedings that might be initiated against the Company, will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Expenses - The Company has and expects to incur various costs related to the intrusions, including the cost of conducting the pending investigation, the cost of providing identity protection services to the Company’s customers and legal and other professional expenses. In fiscal 2015, the Company recorded $5 of intrusion related costs and anticipated insurance proceeds of $3. These amounts were recorded within Selling and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Anticipated insurance proceeds recorded for the insurance receivable were based on the Company’s insurance recovery assessment. This assessment included the review of applicable insurance policies, correspondence with the insurance carriers and analysis by legal counsel.

Impact on Sales - The Company has not experienced weaker than anticipated sales subsequent to the intrusions.

Other Contractual Commitments

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into supply contracts to purchase products for resale and purchase and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology commitments. These contracts typically include either volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations. As of February 28, 2015, the Company had approximately $244 of noncancelable future purchase obligations.

The Company and AB Acquisition entered into a binding term sheet with the PBGC relating to issues regarding the effect of the sale of NAI on certain SUPERVALU retirement plans. The agreement required that the Company not pay any dividends to its stockholders at any time for a period of up to five years. The Company had also agreed to make $100 in aggregate contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan in excess of the minimum required contributions at or before the end of fiscal years 2015 – 2017 and AB Acquisition had agreed to provide a guarantee to the PBGC for such excess payments. On September 11, 2014, the Company, AB Acquisition and the PBGC amended the term sheet. Pursuant to that amendment, the Company made excess contributions of $47 to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan and the Company is no longer restricted by the term sheet from paying dividends to its stockholders and has fully satisfied its obligations to make excess contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan. While the Company is no longer restricted from paying dividends to its stockholders under the term sheet, the Company has no current intent to resume paying dividends. The payment of future dividends is subject to the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors and the requirements of Delaware law, and will depend on a variety of factors that the Company’s Board of Directors may deem relevant. In addition, as described above in Note 7—Long-Term Debt, the Company is limited in the aggregate amount of dividends that the Company may pay during the term of its Secured Term Loan Facility and would need to meet certain conditions in the Secured Term Loan Facility and the Revolving ABL Credit Facility before paying a dividend.

During fiscal 2015, the Company recognized $69 of discrete tax benefits attributable to discontinued operations (see Note 16—Discontinued Operations), which relates to tangible property repair regulations. The Company believes it is entitled to these tax benefits, but is in discussions with NAI and Albertson’s LLC on whether the Company will pay any portion of the related tax refund to NAI and Albertson’s LLC.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business. In the opinion of management, based upon currently-available facts, it is remote that the ultimate outcome of any lawsuits, claims and other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the overall results of the Company’s operations, its cash flows or its financial position.

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 that 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.

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 that 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. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company and (2) affirmed the District Court’s decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company’s Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other distribution centers. On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company’s petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder. The case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings to be determined by the District Court. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain aspects of the 8th Circuit decision.

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week method of pay (“FWW”) in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot’s motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same plaintiffs’ attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the Company’s aggregate obligation, including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs and settlement administration costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014 and final approval on July 30, 2014. Payments to class members began in mid-November 2014 and were completed in February 2015. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 before tax ($3 after tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter. The Company funded $5 into a qualified settlement fund on February 28, 2014.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On December 16, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the cases consolidated as In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation and transferred the cases to the District Court in Minnesota. The Company expects a consolidated complaint will be filed within the next several months.

In December 2014, the United States Department of Labor (the “DOL”), in connection with an audit of the SUPERVALU Group Health Plan, the SUPERVALU Retiree Benefit Plan, and the SUPERVALU Group Benefit Plan, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), alleged three violations of its regulations relating to loan transactions between the active and retiree plans, the Company’s treatment of three rebates it had received from insurance carriers and a description of the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act by the Company’s third party administrator in its written materials. In connection with closing out the audit, the Company determined it would make additional contributions and pay interest totaling $19 to the trusts that fund the three aforementioned plans, resulting in a benefit plan charge of $5 before tax in fiscal 2015. No penalties were assessed by the DOL. The payments were made on March 5, 2015.

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. 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.

With respect to the IOS, C&S and Criminal Intrusion matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a material loss is remote. 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.