Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements	6 Months Ended
Sep. 08, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements	Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities We have outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of September 8, 2018. These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of Wholesale customers. The guarantees are generally for the entire terms of the leases, fixture financing loans or other debt obligations with remaining terms that range from less than one year to twelve years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately seven years. For each guarantee issued, if the Wholesale customer or other third party defaults on a payment, we would be required to make payments under our guarantee. Generally, the guarantees are secured by indemnification agreements or personal guarantees of the Wholesale customer. We review performance risk related to our guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of September 8, 2018, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments we would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $50 ($40 on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, we believe the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under our guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis. We are contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions. We 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 our lease assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, we believe the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. No amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under our guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis. We are a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which we 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 our 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 us and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While our aggregate indemnification obligations could result in a material liability, we are not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. No amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis. Following the sale of NAI on March 21, 2013, we remain contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees we issued with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was our subsidiary. As of September 8, 2018, using actuarial estimates as of December 31, 2017, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $58 ($52 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie our commitments, we believe 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 we remain contingently liable, we believe that the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees, as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis. Agreements with United Natural Foods, Inc. On July 25, 2018, SUPERVALU, SUPERVALU Enterprises, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of SUPERVALU (“Enterprises”), United Natural Foods, Inc. (“UNFI”) and Jedi Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of UNFI (“Merger Sub”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended, the “Merger Agreement”), providing for the acquisition of the Company by UNFI. The transaction will be effected through a merger of Merger Sub and (1) SUPERVALU, if the Merger (as defined below) is completed prior to the completion of the Company’s internal reorganization into a holding company structure, referred to as our Holding Company reorganization, or (2) Enterprises, if the Merger (as defined below) is completed following the completion of our Holding Company reorganization. On the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, at the closing of the transactions contemplated thereby (the “Closing”), Merger Sub will merge with and into SUPERVALU or Enterprises, as applicable, (the “Merger”), with SUPERVALU or Enterprises, as applicable, surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of UNFI, and each outstanding share of such company’s common stock will be converted into the right to receive $32.50 per share in cash. The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights, in which we may be required to pay UNFI a termination fee of $40.5 in certain circumstances. For further information on the proposed Merger and Merger Agreement, please refer to the Merger Agreement, a copy of which has been filed as Exhibit 2.1 to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on July 26, 2018, together with the First Amendment filed as Exhibit 2.1 to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 10, 2018. The transaction is currently expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2018, subject to shareholder approval and other customary closing conditions. Agreements with Save-A-Lot and Onex The Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which we sold the Save-A-Lot business (the “SAL Merger Agreement”) contains customary indemnification obligations of each party with respect to breaches of their respective representations, warranties and covenants, and certain other specified matters, on the terms and subject to the limitations set forth in the SAL Merger Agreement. Similarly, we entered into a Separation Agreement with Moran Foods (the “Separation Agreement”), which contains indemnification obligations and covenants related to the separation of the assets and liabilities of the Save-A-Lot business from us. We also entered into the Services Agreement, pursuant to which we are providing Save-A-Lot various technical, human resources, finance and other operational services for a term of five years, subject to termination provisions that can be exercised by each party. The initial annual base charge under the Services Agreement is $30, subject to adjustments. The Services Agreement generally requires each party to indemnify the other party against third-party claims arising out of the performance of or the provision or receipt of services under the Services Agreement. While our aggregate indemnification obligations to Save-A-Lot and Onex could result in a material liability, we are not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. We have recorded the fair value of the guarantee in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and Affiliates In connection with the sale of NAI, we entered into various agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and its affiliates related to on-going operations, including a TSA with each of NAI and Albertson’s LLC. We are now providing services to NAI and Albertson’s LLC to transition and wind down the TSA. In exchange for these transition and wind down services, we are entitled to receive aggregate fees of $50 that are being paid in eight $6 increments from April 2015 through October 2018. These payments are separate from and incremental to the fixed and variable fees we receive under the TSA. On October 17, 2017, we entered into a letter agreement with each of Albertson’s LLC and NAI pursuant to which the parties agreed that the TSA would expire on September 21, 2018 as to those services that we are providing to Albertson’s LLC and NAI, other than with respect to certain limited services and to Albertson’s LLC for one distribution center until at least October 2018. The parties do not expect any of these services, or any of the transition and wind down services, to extend beyond April 2019. We also agreed that Albertson’s LLC and NAI would no longer provide services to us after September 21, 2019. In addition, we have been operating a distribution center in Lancaster, Pennsylvania that is owned by NAI. In March 2017, we acquired a distribution center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and leased a facility in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Other than with respect to certain freezer capacity that we will continue to ship from the Lancaster distribution center, we expect to have transitioned from the Lancaster distribution center to the Harrisburg and Carlisle distribution centers by the end of October 2018. Haggen In connection with Haggen’s bankruptcy process, Haggen has now closed or sold all 164 of its stores. The transition and wind down of the Haggen transition services agreement occurred in the second quarter of fiscal 2017, and we now provide limited services in connection with the wind down of the Haggen estate. We filed approximately $2 of administrative 503(b)(9) priority claims and approximately $8 of unsecured claims with the bankruptcy court, including a number of contingent claims. On September 30, 2016, the bankruptcy court approved settlement agreements resolving our unsecured claims against Haggen. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreements, we received approximately $3 from Haggen on October 11, 2016, and agreed to an allowed administrative 503(b)(9) priority claim in the amount of approximately $2. Pursuant to a trade agreement that Unified entered into with Haggen, Haggen paid a substantial portion of Unified’s prepetition receivables in exchange for certain shipping terms from Unified, and Haggen also agreed to stipulate to an allowed administrative 503(b)(9) priority claim for the balance of Unified’s prepetition claim for goods shipped to Haggen. Accordingly, Unified filed a proof of claim asserting an administrative expense priority claim in the amount of $6. Haggen has asserted certain potential offsets to Unified’s priority claim that Unified disputes. Unified also filed a proof of claim against Haggen for breach of contract damages related to the termination of its supply agreement and various ancillary agreements. If allowed, such claim would be treated as a general unsecured claim in the Haggen bankruptcy cases. Relatedly, on September 7, 2016, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) filed a complaint against Comvest Group Holdings, LLC, the private equity owner of Haggen (“Comvest”), certain of Haggen’s non-debtor affiliates, and certain of their respective officers, directors and managers (collectively the “Defendants”) in the bankruptcy court to recover additional funds for Haggen’s bankruptcy estate for the benefit of creditors, including potential payment of Unified claims. The trial concluded in November 2017 and on January 22, 2018, the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Defendants on all counts dismissing the Committee’s complaint. On February 2, 2018, the Committee filed a Notice of Appeal and subsequently filed a Statement of Issues on Appeal challenging the bankruptcy court’s ruling with respect to the Committee’s recharacterization claim. Absent a successful appeal, it is our understanding that the Haggen estate will not have sufficient assets to pay administrative expense priority claims in full, including our and Unified’s 503(b)(9) priority claims, or to pay any amounts for general unsecured claims. On August 23, 2018, the Committee and certain individual creditors, including Unified and Supervalu, entered into a global settlement agreement with the Defendants and Haggen to resolve the Committee litigation and other claims related to any prepetition agreements or arrangements between the parties, whereby Unified’s and Supervalu’s administrative priority claims will be allowed and paid in the approximate amount of $7. In connection with the global settlement, Haggen intends to resolve and conclude the bankruptcy cases through (i) a plan of liquidation for the holding company and (ii) the structured dismissal of the operating companies’ bankruptcy cases. Pursuant to the global settlement agreement and the proposed structured dismissal, creditors will not receive a distribution on account of their general unsecured claims. The global settlement agreement, plan of liquidation, and structured dismissal are subject to bankruptcy court approval. The hearing before the bankruptcy court to approve the global settlement is scheduled for November 14, 2018. Information Technology Intrusions In prior periods, we have separately reported on reasonably possible losses with respect to the criminal network intrusions we experienced in fiscal 2015 (the “Criminal Intrusion”). As of the date of this filing, the only active claim relating to the Criminal Intrusion is the litigation entitled In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation disclosed in more detail below in this Note 15 under Legal Proceedings. Other Contractual Commitments In the ordinary course of business, we enter 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 September 8, 2018, we had approximately $371 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations. Legal Proceedings We are 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, the likelihood that the ultimate outcome of any lawsuits, claims and other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our overall results of our operations, cash flows or financial position is remote. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against us alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“C&S”) was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, we purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation’s bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain of our assets to C&S that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints alleged 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 we and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting Midwest plaintiffs’ request to seek class certification for certain Midwest distribution centers and denying New England plaintiff’s request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiff’s request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. In September 2015, the New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted Midwest plaintiffs’ motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only one of which sued us (the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class). On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied the New England plaintiff’s appeals seeking to join an additional New England plaintiff and the appeal seeking the ability to move for class certification of a smaller New England class. At a mediation on May 25, 2017, we reached a settlement with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which is the one Midwest class suing us. We and the Midwest plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement and the court granted final approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017. The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of wrongdoing and liability by us; (2) release of all Midwest plaintiffs’ claims against us related to the allegations and transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class; and (3) payment by us of $9. There is no contribution between us and C&S, and C&S did not settle the claims alleged against it and on April 19, 2018, a jury returned a verdict in favor of C&S determining that there was no conspiracy between Supervalu and C&S to restrain trade. The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims against us, which at this time are determined as remote. On February 15, 2018, we filed a summary judgment and Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court granted our motions. The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit on August 15, 2018. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against us relating to the Criminal Intrusion. The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and we filed our response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the District Court’s dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, we filed a cross-appeal to preserve our additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14 out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th Circuit did not consider our cross-appeal and remanded the case back for consideration of our additional arguments for dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff. On October 30, 2017, we filed our motion to dismiss the remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint. The court held a hearing on the motions on December 14, 2017, and on March 7, 2018, the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend and granted our motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit. We had $50 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 at the time of the Criminal Intrusion, which we believe should cover any loss related to this litigation. On June 30, 2015, we received a letter from the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OCR”) seeking documents and information regarding our HIPAA breach notification and reporting from 2009 to the present. The letter indicates that the OCR Midwest Region is doing a compliance review of our alleged failure to report small breaches of protected health information related to our pharmacy operations (e.g., any incident involving less than 500 individuals). On September 4, 2015, we submitted our response to OCR’s letter. While we do not believe that a loss is probable by reason of the compliance review, we believe that a loss is reasonably possible; however, at this time we cannot estimate a range of possible losses because the OCR’s review is at the early stages and we do not know if OCR will find a violation(s) and, if so, what violation(s) and whether OCR will proceed with corrective action, issuance of penalties or monetary settlement. The potential penalties related to the issues being investigated are up to $50 thousand per violation (which can be counted per day) with a $1.5 per calendar year maximum for multiple violations of a single provision (with the potential for finding violations of multiple provisions each with a separate $1.5 per calendar year maximum); however, as noted above, any actual penalties will be determined only after consideration by OCR of various factors, including the nature of any violation, remedial actions taken by us and other factors determined relevant by OCR. On September 21, 2016, our Farm Fresh retail banner, classified as discontinued operations, received an administrative subpoena issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). In addition to requesting information on Farm Fresh’s pharmacy policies and procedures generally, the subpoena also requested the production of documents that are required to be kept and maintained by Farm Fresh pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations. On November 23, 2016, Farm Fresh responded to the subpoena and is cooperating fully with DEA’s additional requests for information. On February 8, 2018, Farm Fresh received a letter from the US Attorney’s Office asserting violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the potential for penalties. Farm Fresh’s response to the alleged violations was due April 30, 2018. In March 2018, representatives for Farm Fresh engaged in discussions with representatives for the DEA and the US Attorney’s Office. We are in settlement discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and believe that a settlement of the matter is probable. We have reduced our prior accrual, which was recorded within discontinued operations, based on the probable settlement amounts reflecting information available to us at this time and our expectation that we will settle this matter for an immaterial amount. 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. We regularly monitor our exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change our predictions with respect to outcomes and estimates with respect to related costs and exposures. With respect to the matters discussed above, we believe the chance of a material loss is remote. It is possible, although management believes that the likelihood 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 our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities

We have outstanding guarantees related to certain leases, fixture financing loans and other debt obligations of various retailers as of September 8, 2018. These guarantees were generally made to support the business growth of Wholesale customers. The guarantees are generally for the entire terms of the leases, fixture financing loans or other debt obligations with remaining terms that range from less than one year to twelve years, with a weighted average remaining term of approximately seven years. For each guarantee issued, if the Wholesale customer or other third party defaults on a payment, we would be required to make payments under our guarantee. Generally, the guarantees are secured by indemnification agreements or personal guarantees of the Wholesale customer.

We review performance risk related to our guarantee obligations based on internal measures of credit performance. As of September 8, 2018, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments we would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $50 ($40 on a discounted basis). Based on the indemnification agreements, personal guarantees and results of the reviews of performance risk, we believe the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under our guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis.

We are contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions. We 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 our lease assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, we believe the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. No amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations under our guarantee arrangements as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis.

We are a party to a variety of contractual agreements under which we 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 our 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 us and agreements to indemnify officers, directors and employees in the performance of their work. While our aggregate indemnification obligations could result in a material liability, we are not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. No amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these contingent obligations as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis.

Following the sale of NAI on March 21, 2013, we remain contingently liable with respect to certain self-insurance commitments and other guarantees as a result of parental guarantees we issued with respect to the obligations of NAI that were incurred while NAI was our subsidiary. As of September 8, 2018, using actuarial estimates as of December 31, 2017, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was estimated at $58 ($52 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie our commitments, we believe 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 we remain contingently liable, we believe that the likelihood that we will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees, as the fair value has been determined to be de minimis.

Agreements with United Natural Foods, Inc.

On July 25, 2018, SUPERVALU, SUPERVALU Enterprises, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of SUPERVALU (“Enterprises”), United Natural Foods, Inc. (“UNFI”) and Jedi Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of UNFI (“Merger Sub”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended, the “Merger Agreement”), providing for the acquisition of the Company by UNFI.

The transaction will be effected through a merger of Merger Sub and (1) SUPERVALU, if the Merger (as defined below) is completed prior to the completion of the Company’s internal reorganization into a holding company structure, referred to as our Holding Company reorganization, or (2) Enterprises, if the Merger (as defined below) is completed following the completion of our Holding Company reorganization. On the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, at the closing of the transactions contemplated thereby (the “Closing”), Merger Sub will merge with and into SUPERVALU or Enterprises, as applicable, (the “Merger”), with SUPERVALU or Enterprises, as applicable, surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of UNFI, and each outstanding share of such company’s common stock will be converted into the right to receive $32.50 per share in cash. The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights, in which we may be required to pay UNFI a termination fee of $40.5 in certain circumstances.

For further information on the proposed Merger and Merger Agreement, please refer to the Merger Agreement, a copy of which has been filed as Exhibit 2.1 to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on July 26, 2018, together with the First Amendment filed as Exhibit 2.1 to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 10, 2018.

The transaction is currently expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2018, subject to shareholder approval and other customary closing conditions.

Agreements with Save-A-Lot and Onex

The Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which we sold the Save-A-Lot business (the “SAL Merger Agreement”) contains customary indemnification obligations of each party with respect to breaches of their respective representations, warranties and covenants, and certain other specified matters, on the terms and subject to the limitations set forth in the SAL Merger Agreement. Similarly, we entered into a Separation Agreement with Moran Foods (the “Separation Agreement”), which contains indemnification obligations and covenants related to the separation of the assets and liabilities of the Save-A-Lot business from us. We also entered into the Services Agreement, pursuant to which we are providing Save-A-Lot various technical, human resources, finance and other operational services for a term of five years, subject to termination provisions that can be exercised by each party. The initial annual base charge under the Services Agreement is $30, subject to adjustments. The Services Agreement generally requires each party to indemnify the other party against third-party claims arising out of the performance of or the provision or receipt of services under the Services Agreement. While our aggregate indemnification obligations to Save-A-Lot and Onex could result in a material liability, we are not aware of any matters that are expected to result in a material liability. We have recorded the fair value of the guarantee in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and Affiliates

In connection with the sale of NAI, we entered into various agreements with AB Acquisition LLC and its affiliates related to on-going operations, including a TSA with each of NAI and Albertson’s LLC. We are now providing services to NAI and Albertson’s LLC to transition and wind down the TSA. In exchange for these transition and wind down services, we are entitled to receive aggregate fees of $50 that are being paid in eight $6 increments from April 2015 through October 2018. These payments are separate from and incremental to the fixed and variable fees we receive under the TSA. On October 17, 2017, we entered into a letter agreement with each of Albertson’s LLC and NAI pursuant to which the parties agreed that the TSA would expire on September 21, 2018 as to those services that we are providing to Albertson’s LLC and NAI, other than with respect to certain limited services and to Albertson’s LLC for one distribution center until at least October 2018. The parties do not expect any of these services, or any of the transition and wind down services, to extend beyond April 2019. We also agreed that Albertson’s LLC and NAI would no longer provide services to us after September 21, 2019. In addition, we have been operating a distribution center in Lancaster, Pennsylvania that is owned by NAI. In March 2017, we acquired a distribution center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and leased a facility in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Other than with respect to certain freezer capacity that we will continue to ship from the Lancaster distribution center, we expect to have transitioned from the Lancaster distribution center to the Harrisburg and Carlisle distribution centers by the end of October 2018.

Haggen

In connection with Haggen’s bankruptcy process, Haggen has now closed or sold all 164 of its stores. The transition and wind down of the Haggen transition services agreement occurred in the second quarter of fiscal 2017, and we now provide limited services in connection with the wind down of the Haggen estate. We filed approximately $2 of administrative 503(b)(9) priority claims and approximately $8 of unsecured claims with the bankruptcy court, including a number of contingent claims. On September 30, 2016, the bankruptcy court approved settlement agreements resolving our unsecured claims against Haggen. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreements, we received approximately $3 from Haggen on October 11, 2016, and agreed to an allowed administrative 503(b)(9) priority claim in the amount of approximately $2.

Pursuant to a trade agreement that Unified entered into with Haggen, Haggen paid a substantial portion of Unified’s prepetition receivables in exchange for certain shipping terms from Unified, and Haggen also agreed to stipulate to an allowed administrative 503(b)(9) priority claim for the balance of Unified’s prepetition claim for goods shipped to Haggen. Accordingly, Unified filed a proof of claim asserting an administrative expense priority claim in the amount of $6. Haggen has asserted certain potential offsets to Unified’s priority claim that Unified disputes. Unified also filed a proof of claim against Haggen for breach of contract damages related to the termination of its supply agreement and various ancillary agreements. If allowed, such claim would be treated as a general unsecured claim in the Haggen bankruptcy cases. Relatedly, on September 7, 2016, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) filed a complaint against Comvest Group Holdings, LLC, the private equity owner of Haggen (“Comvest”), certain of Haggen’s non-debtor affiliates, and certain of their respective officers, directors and managers (collectively the “Defendants”) in the bankruptcy court to recover additional funds for Haggen’s bankruptcy estate for the benefit of creditors, including potential payment of Unified claims. The trial concluded in November 2017 and on January 22, 2018, the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Defendants on all counts dismissing the Committee’s complaint. On February 2, 2018, the Committee filed a Notice of Appeal and subsequently filed a Statement of Issues on Appeal challenging the bankruptcy court’s ruling with respect to the Committee’s recharacterization claim. Absent a successful appeal, it is our understanding that the Haggen estate will not have sufficient assets to pay administrative expense priority claims in full, including our and Unified’s 503(b)(9) priority claims, or to pay any amounts for general unsecured claims. On August 23, 2018, the Committee and certain individual creditors, including Unified and Supervalu, entered into a global settlement agreement with the Defendants and Haggen to resolve the Committee litigation and other claims related to any prepetition agreements or arrangements between the parties, whereby Unified’s and Supervalu’s administrative priority claims will be allowed and paid in the approximate amount of $7. In connection with the global settlement, Haggen intends to resolve and conclude the bankruptcy cases through (i) a plan of liquidation for the holding company and (ii) the structured dismissal of the operating companies’ bankruptcy cases. Pursuant to the global settlement agreement and the proposed structured dismissal, creditors will not receive a distribution on account of their general unsecured claims. The global settlement agreement, plan of liquidation, and structured dismissal are subject to bankruptcy court approval. The hearing before the bankruptcy court to approve the global settlement is scheduled for November 14, 2018.

Information Technology Intrusions

In prior periods, we have separately reported on reasonably possible losses with respect to the criminal network intrusions we experienced in fiscal 2015 (the “Criminal Intrusion”). As of the date of this filing, the only active claim relating to the Criminal Intrusion is the litigation entitled In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation disclosed in more detail below in this Note 15 under Legal Proceedings.

Other Contractual Commitments

In the ordinary course of business, we enter 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 September 8, 2018, we had approximately $371 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations.

Legal Proceedings

We are 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, the likelihood that the ultimate outcome of any lawsuits, claims and other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our overall results of our operations, cash flows or financial position is remote.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against us alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“C&S”) was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, we purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation’s bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain of our assets to C&S that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints alleged 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 we and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting Midwest plaintiffs’ request to seek class certification for certain Midwest distribution centers and denying New England plaintiff’s request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiff’s request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. In September 2015, the New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted Midwest plaintiffs’ motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only one of which sued us (the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class). On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied the New England plaintiff’s appeals seeking to join an additional New England plaintiff and the appeal seeking the ability to move for class certification of a smaller New England class. At a mediation on May 25, 2017, we reached a settlement with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which is the one Midwest class suing us. We and the Midwest plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement and the court granted final approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017. The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of wrongdoing and liability by us; (2) release of all Midwest plaintiffs’ claims against us related to the allegations and transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class; and (3) payment by us of $9. There is no contribution between us and C&S, and C&S did not settle the claims alleged against it and on April 19, 2018, a jury returned a verdict in favor of C&S determining that there was no conspiracy between Supervalu and C&S to restrain trade. The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims against us, which at this time are determined as remote. On February 15, 2018, we filed a summary judgment and Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court granted our motions. The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit on August 15, 2018.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against us relating to the Criminal Intrusion. The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and we filed our response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the District Court’s dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, we filed a cross-appeal to preserve our additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14 out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th Circuit did not consider our cross-appeal and remanded the case back for consideration of our additional arguments for dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff. On October 30, 2017, we filed our motion to dismiss the remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint. The court held a hearing on the motions on December 14, 2017, and on March 7, 2018, the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend and granted our motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit. We had $50 of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 at the time of the Criminal Intrusion, which we believe should cover any loss related to this litigation.

On June 30, 2015, we received a letter from the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OCR”) seeking documents and information regarding our HIPAA breach notification and reporting from 2009 to the present. The letter indicates that the OCR Midwest Region is doing a compliance review of our alleged failure to report small breaches of protected health information related to our pharmacy operations (e.g., any incident involving less than 500 individuals). On September 4, 2015, we submitted our response to OCR’s letter. While we do not believe that a loss is probable by reason of the compliance review, we believe that a loss is reasonably possible; however, at this time we cannot estimate a range of possible losses because the OCR’s review is at the early stages and we do not know if OCR will find a violation(s) and, if so, what violation(s) and whether OCR will proceed with corrective action, issuance of penalties or monetary settlement. The potential penalties related to the issues being investigated are up to $50 thousand per violation (which can be counted per day) with a $1.5 per calendar year maximum for multiple violations of a single provision (with the potential for finding violations of multiple provisions each with a separate $1.5 per calendar year maximum); however, as noted above, any actual penalties will be determined only after consideration by OCR of various factors, including the nature of any violation, remedial actions taken by us and other factors determined relevant by OCR.

On September 21, 2016, our Farm Fresh retail banner, classified as discontinued operations, received an administrative subpoena issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). In addition to requesting information on Farm Fresh’s pharmacy policies and procedures generally, the subpoena also requested the production of documents that are required to be kept and maintained by Farm Fresh pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations. On November 23, 2016, Farm Fresh responded to the subpoena and is cooperating fully with DEA’s additional requests for information. On February 8, 2018, Farm Fresh received a letter from the US Attorney’s Office asserting violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the potential for penalties. Farm Fresh’s response to the alleged violations was due April 30, 2018. In March 2018, representatives for Farm Fresh engaged in discussions with representatives for the DEA and the US Attorney’s Office. We are in settlement discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and believe that a settlement of the matter is probable. We have reduced our prior accrual, which was recorded within discontinued operations, based on the probable settlement amounts reflecting information available to us at this time and our expectation that we will settle this matter for an immaterial amount.

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. We regularly monitor our exposure to the loss contingencies associated with these matters and may from time to time change our predictions with respect to outcomes and estimates with respect to related costs and exposures.

With respect to the matters discussed above, we believe the chance of a material loss is remote. It is possible, although management believes that the likelihood 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 our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.